Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Zimmerman acquitted

Thread: Purgatory: Zimmerman acquitted Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000958

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

Remind me again, why should Black people in the US feel as if the should feel any allegiance to said country?

[ 13. November 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Mebbe blacks in America should start packing.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

This verdict shows the way a jury system works, or not. The verdict has to be respected .
Zimmerman can not be retried since he has been found innocent and the concept of double jeporady has attached . Of course he could be sued civily as happened to O.J.Simpson 2 decades ago.
I wonder how race relations will be affected ? I hope not negatively . O.K. I am
an optomist .

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Black guy walking through your white-sheet neighborhood? Want to take him out? Here's your easy guide:

1. Stalk him.
2. Jump him.
3. When he fights back, shoot him.
4. Claim it was self-defense.

Worked for Zimmerman. It can work for you.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gaaaaa. [brick wall]

I would've thought they'd at least convict him on involuntary manslaughter. I don't know for sure what happened. But, even if everything Zimmerman said was true, even though the 911 dispatcher told him to back off, he a) went after Martin, anyway; and b) took a gun. Without that, it's unlikely that anything would've happened. He could've told the dispatcher where to find him (Zimmerman), and gone home.

This is apt to get nasty. Plus the movie "Fruitvale Station" is coming out. It's about the fatal shooting, a few years back in Oakland, Calif., of unarmed passenger Oscar Grant (Afr,-Am.) by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officer Johann Messerle (white). (Messerle got 2 years, and was released after 1.) Plus the Supremes et al messing with the Voting Rights Act. And any number of other things.

I'm worried about riots, by whichever side (or both). I grew up in the '60s/'70s, with lots of riots and other unrest on the TV. When the verdict about the Rodney King beating came down, there were riots and looting here. When Grant was killed, there were riots in Oakland. And when you consider how...stupid, insensitive, clumsy, and corrupt the Oakland Police Dept. can be... Remember the pictures of "Occupy Oakland"? And then there are the violent anarchists that turn up to disrupt peaceful protests.

When her husband was elected, Michelle Obama said that she was proud of her country for the first time. Bet she doesn't feel that way now.

[Frown]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There is a fundamental flaw in going from Zimmerman is a freaking idiot who should have stayed in his car to Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. Rank stupidity is not a crime. Rank stupidity causing death isn't even a crime.

I think the jury asked for clarification about manslaughter precisely because they were trying to decide whether Zimmerman was over the line into criminal responsibility. A lot of that would have to do with whether to characterise his actions as being all one event or a series of events.

From what I've heard, I think the verdict is understandable.

Also, can we please stop presenting this as a whites vs blacks thing? Does anyone looking at Zimmerman SERIOUSLY think he answers the description of the stereotypical privileged white man of Anglo-Celtic heritage?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Black guy walking through your white-sheet neighborhood? Want to take him out? Here's your easy guide:

1. Stalk him.
2. Jump him.
3. When he fights back, shoot him.
4. Claim it was self-defense.

Worked for Zimmerman. It can work for you.

The biggest problem with the case, as far as I can see, is an inability to prove point 2 in your scenario.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

That's the way jury trials work, and that's in part a consequence of the stupid Florida law.
Still, if a law abiding black man with a licensed gun happened to pass Zimmerman on the street, recognized him and felt threatened given his history and shot Zimmerman in self defense, I wonder how the law would be applied.

As for Zimmerman not being a "White" of traditional "Anglo-Celtic" heritage, "White" is an evolving concept in the U.S. There was a time when the Irish were not only not White, but as the joke in "Blazing Saddles" noticed, were briefly rated below Blacks on the social acceptability scale.

[ 14. July 2013, 06:26: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
white-sheet neighborhood

Are you implying that this was a Klan area of Florida?

Are you implying that Zimmerman (who apparently had African ancestry on his mother's side) was connected with the Klan?

If so, what is your evidence?

If not, why pour petrol on the fire?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

As for Zimmerman not being a "White" of traditional "Anglo-Celtic" heritage, "White" is an evolving concept in the U.S. There was a time when the Irish were not only not White, but as the joke in "Blazing Saddles" noticed, were briefly rated below Blacks on the social acceptability scale.

It may well be an evolving concept, but I have serious doubts it has evolved to the point that Zimmerman would have grown up with the sense of racial entitlement that would enable him to think he could get away with murder, metaphorically or literally.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It may well be an evolving concept, but I have serious doubts it has evolved to the point that Zimmerman would have grown up with the sense of racial entitlement that would enable him to think he could get away with murder, metaphorically or literally.

Agreed. It was probably his policeman fantasy the made him think he could get away with murder.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The first fault is with the stand your ground law. It, as well as Zimmerman's actions, caused an unnecessary death.
I do not think race can fairly be removed. If Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white, I sincerely doubt that the treatment of the initial incident would have been the same. Nor do I believe the trial verdict would have been the same either.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Black guy walking through your white-sheet neighborhood? Want to take him out? Here's your easy guide:

1. Stalk him.
2. Jump him.
3. When he fights back, shoot him.
4. Claim it was self-defense.

Worked for Zimmerman. It can work for you.
The biggest problem with the case, as far as I can see, is an inability to prove point 2 in your scenario.

Do you think that Trayvon somehow dragged Zimmerman out of his car? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Black guy walking through your white-sheet neighborhood? Want to take him out? Here's your easy guide:

1. Stalk him.
2. Jump him.
3. When he fights back, shoot him.
4. Claim it was self-defense.

Worked for Zimmerman. It can work for you.
The biggest problem with the case, as far as I can see, is an inability to prove point 2 in your scenario.
Do you think that Trayvon somehow dragged Zimmerman out of his car? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

That sounds like you're talking about point 1, not point 2. Yes he got out of his car. Yes he confronted Trayvon in some fashion. That simply doesn't prove 'jump'.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It may well be an evolving concept, but I have serious doubts it has evolved to the point that Zimmerman would have grown up with the sense of racial entitlement that would enable him to think he could get away with murder, metaphorically or literally.
Agreed. It was probably his policeman fantasy the made him think he could get away with murder.

I do think it's a more plausible explanation of his actions, yes.

As for murder... If we're going with intent to kill then the only conclusion is that Zimmerman was a pretty incompetent murderer. Either that or an amazingly clever one who cunningly got his victim to lie on top of him.

I find it far more plausible that Zimmerman found himself in way over his head and not in control of the situation as intended. I'm not finding the necessary mental intent for murder in there. I do think, though, that there was a prospect of a manslaughter conviction.

[ 14. July 2013, 07:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

This is terrifying.

If I were in the unlikely event to ever visit the USA - should I therefore get an itinerary for every single trip I take while on American soil (even down to a corner shop), and always be ready to show my passport and credentials to anyone who asks? And treat anyone and everyone as if they are undercover police?

As going armed is obviously not available to me as a Brit.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Orfeo--

Maybe it's hard to see from Oz, but it IS a black and white thing. That's a horrible, poisonous vein in American life. I don't have the experience to really understand it, and I don't know how to fix it. But I know it's there.

Way too many black teens and men wind up in prison. IIRC, they're the majority in prison. (I may be wrong about that.) African-Americans are racially-profiled in stores (as thieves), on the road (AKA "driving while black or brown"), and just walking down the street, minding their own business.

African-Americans have been lied to by the powers that be, lied about, experimented on, beaten, killed, segregated, kept from voting, marginalized financially, and on and on and on. And they still survive.
[Votive]

As to Zimmerman's qualifications for white male privilege: he's white and he's male. In this kind of situation, that's all it takes.

I gather relations between light- and dark-skinned people have been similar in Oz, particularly with regards to the Aboriginal people.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alan,
You are white, you are fairly safe.

[ 14. July 2013, 07:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Other miscarriages due to "Make My Day" type laws..

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/06/11384/seven-faces-nraalec-approved-stand-your-ground-law

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Agreed. It was probably his policeman fantasy the made him think he could get away with murder.

It looks as though that is not a fantasy.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Sorry re duplicate posts. Connection hell.}

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Agreed. It was probably his policeman fantasy the made him think he could get away with murder.
It looks as though that is not a fantasy.

He definitely was not a policeman, although he wanted to be one.

He was correct that he could get away with murder using the law.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, can we please stop presenting this as a whites vs blacks thing? Does anyone looking at Zimmerman SERIOUSLY think he answers the description of the stereotypical privileged white man of Anglo-Celtic heritage?

Do you SERIOUSLY think that, if Zimmerman had seen a young white man he did not recognise, he would have rung the police to report him as a suspicious character? AIUI, he had previously reported about half a dozen people behaving suspiciously in the neighbourhood and all of them were black.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
This is terrifying.

If I were in the unlikely event to ever visit the USA - should I therefore get an itinerary for every single trip I take while on American soil (even down to a corner shop), and always be ready to show my passport and credentials to anyone who asks? And treat anyone and everyone as if they are undercover police?

As going armed is obviously not available to me as a Brit.

Now, this I can relate to. But I think it raises an entirely different question: just what do people think a murder conviction would achieve?

Convicting gun-toting morons doesn't bring the victims back. If some gun-toting moron shoots me while I'm over here, I'm not actually going to be THAT interested in what happens to them after. Even if I survive, my preferred outcome was not getting shot in the first place.

The problem is the gun wielding culture, and while I do wonder about the balance struck by some of the so-called stand your ground laws, the cultural problem is FAR wider than that in my view. Even if you recorded a conviction every time that a gun-toting moron hurt an innocent person as a result of misinterpreting events, there are a host of other morons who haven't YET hurt someone but are dangerous precisely because they believe they're immune from making dreadful mistakes.

Assuming that Zimmerman is guilty of nothing greater than profound idiocy and policeman fantasies, he might have learnt his lesson now. But it's frightening to think how many people in the USA might only learn their lesson at great cost to someone else.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alan,
You are white, you are fairly safe.

Who is Alan?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, can we please stop presenting this as a whites vs blacks thing? Does anyone looking at Zimmerman SERIOUSLY think he answers the description of the stereotypical privileged white man of Anglo-Celtic heritage?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that, if Zimmerman had seen a young white man he did not recognise, he would have rung the police to report him as a suspicious character? AIUI, he had previously reported about half a dozen people behaving suspiciously in the neighbourhood and all of them were black.

And? I didn't suggest otherwise. Nowhere did I question the racial identity of Trayvon.

It has been observed that black people are sometimes more suspicious and nervous of the motivations of black people nearby. I cannot recall the famous black person who related feeling this nervousness and being taken aback by his own reaction. But being suspicious of black people didn't bleach his skin!!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Short version: it is a logical fallacy to use proof that Trayvon is 'black' to demonstrate that Zimmerman must be 'white'.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apologies for missing the edit window again, but it really does seem to me that there's a serious question why blacks vs whites fires the imagination to the extent that black man vs Hispanic man gets totally ignored.

According to a report I found in Australian media, Zimmerman is essentially half-Hispanic. To my eye he LOOKS Hispanic. I'll bet you a decent sum he grew up being treated as Hispanic by many people on the basis of his looks.

Rightly or wrongly, I know that in America 'white' and 'Hispanic' are treated as different categories of people. So when folks talk about this case as about whites shooting blacks, I end up wondering what the hell they're looking at. This not a case about whites shooting blacks. It's a case about BLACKS BEING SHOT.

Is that a thing for blacks to be angry about? Hell yes. But as I already referred to, beliefs about young black males are not somehow confined to 'whites'. Asians are not immune to making assumptions about black teenagers.

[ 14. July 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It has been observed that black people are sometimes more suspicious and nervous of the motivations of black people nearby. I cannot recall the famous black person who related feeling this nervousness and being taken aback by his own reaction. But being suspicious of black people didn't bleach his skin!!

This can still be directly traced to white racism, though.

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alan,
You are white, you are fairly safe.
Who is Alan?

Typo. Apologies to Alex.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Is that a thing for blacks to be angry about? Hell yes. But as I already referred to, beliefs about young black males are not somehow confined to 'whites'. Asians are not immune to making assumptions about black teenagers.

Racism is not confined to one group. All are capable of this. I would add that the racism in a given area contains the character of the dominant group, even if the actors in any given situation do not belong to that group.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Is that a thing for blacks to be angry about? Hell yes. But as I already referred to, beliefs about young black males are not somehow confined to 'whites'. Asians are not immune to making assumptions about black teenagers.
Racism is not confined to one group. All are capable of this. I would add that the racism in a given area contains the character of the dominant group, even if the actors in any given situation do not belong to that group.

Possibly. But it still makes far more sense to deal with the issue in terms of the people who are suffering the racism, rather than focus on the race of the perpetrators if race is in fact no longer a unifying characteristic of the perpetrators. It may be quite true that the racism is an aspect that came from white culture, but huge confusions are going to arise if individual people are labelled as 'white' on the basis of their cultural participation rather than their skin colour.

References to the Klan, such as the one made up thread, seem utterly ridiculous when a true Klansman would probably regard Zimmerman as a filthy pollution of the purity of the Aryan race.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Black guy walking through your white-sheet neighborhood? Want to take him out? Here's your easy guide:

1. Stalk him.
2. Jump him.
3. When he fights back, shoot him.
4. Claim it was self-defense.

Worked for Zimmerman. It can work for you. Do you think that Trayvon somehow dragged Zimmerman out of his car? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

The neighborhood was not "white-sheet," Travon's father lived there as well as other black and Hispanic people.

Zimmerman had a legal right to get out of his car. He even had a legal right to follow Martin down the streets of his neighborhood.

Number 2 is wrong by the testimony of several witnesses. Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, sat on his chest and pounded his head against the sidewalk. Would Zimmerman have died if he hadn't shot Martin? We don't know but "self-defense" only requires that he truly believe his life was in danger.

Zimmerman did a lot of dumb things. I don't even think people should own hand guns, much less carry them around but he wasn't on trial for stupidity.

Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't jumped Zimmerman. I feel every sympathy for Trayvon's parents but that doesn't mean their son was blameless. Some things that were reported but not allowed in the trial were Trayvon's text messages talking about how much he loved to fight, all the fights he had been in and the ones he was hoping to have. He belonged to a Fight Club and is seen involved in a fight on an internet video. The reason he was at his father's place was that he was suspended from school.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Copied from the closed thread:

quote:
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on 13 July, 2013 08:42 AM :

Zimmerman's defense in his murder trial

It seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman is on thin, slippery ice with his 'fearing for his life' claim. Of course, any number of things or situations can cause a person to be mortally afraid. But the stand-your-ground seems to be an after-thought. What was the ferocious, suspicious looking kid going to do? Assault Zimmerman with his bag of Skittles? Versus a loaded, ready-to-shoot pistol? I say it doesn't look very good for Zimmerman.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on 13 July, 2013 10:18 AM :

Well, this is America. Kid is black, shooter is white. There you go. [Frown]

All you can is hope that reason prevails. Often, it doesn't. As if the Civil Rights Movement had never existed.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 14 July, 2013 04:17 AM :

FYI: he's been acquitted. See the "Zimmerman" thread here in Purg.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on 14 July, 2013 05:05 AM :

In other words do not turn the other cheek; confront, kill.

Normal Christian behaviour.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on 14 July, 2013 05:50 AM :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Well, this is America. Kid is black, shooter is white. There you go. [Frown]

All you can is hope that reason prevails. Often, it doesn't. As if the Civil Rights Movement had never existed.
Are you saying that because the victim was black and the shooter white, he should be convicted without a trial? The Civil Rights movement was about treating all races equally, not about favoring one over the other.

I watched every minute of this trail and I was very relieved last night when the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty." I think reason did prevail.

I don't agree with most of George Zimmerman's decisions. I wish he had stayed home that night, not got out of his car and not been carrying a gun, but he wasn't on trail for those things.

Zimmerman reported, in a manner the police found perfectly credible, that Trayvon turned and attacked him, knocked him to the ground, then sat astride him and pounded his head against the sidewalk while Zimmerman screamed for help. Trayvon then saw Zimmerman's gun and reached for it. Zimmerman grabbed it first and shot Trayvon.

Is this account true? Several witnesses back it up, but more importantly, there was not enough evidence, if any, to the contrary to convict him of murder or manslaughter.

I wish Zimmerman had stayed home that night. Trayvon would still be alive. But if Zimmerman hadn't shot he may well have been dead or brain damaged and we never would have heard about it.

I'm glad this jury listened to the facts and wasn't swayed by the 2.2 million angry mob that seems to believe criminal justice should be based on the physical appearance of the individuals involved.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on 14 July, 2013 06:31 AM :

What alarms me about this acquittal is the apparent vindication it provides for "stand your ground" laws actually on the books in several states and being considered in others.

My state implemented such a law a couple of years ago. In my first annual session as lawmaker, our House of Reps tried unsuccessfully to repeal it.

These are bad laws, which effectively turn everybody into his or her own personal law enforcement officer without benefit of training, without solid knowledge of the laws and cases supporting them, and you can bet the NRA will now be pushing for similar legislation in all 50 states.

IMO, Stand Your Ground greatly enhances the already far-too-high risk of innocent US citizens getting shot in public while going about their ordinary, unexceptional business.

If I wanted to live in the Wild West, I'd have moved there.

Also, Twilight, you left out one important (to me, anyway) fact: When Zimmerman phoned in his suspicions, the dispatcher told him, "You don't have to follow him."

Zimmerman did so anyway -- against advice, against common sense. What description was ever obtained from Zimmerman about the "suspicious behavior" Martin was exhibiting to warrant his being followed, beyond WWB* in a lily-white neighborhood?

* Walking While Black

[ 14. July 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on 14 July, 2013 06:46 AM :

As I understand it the stand your ground law did not play a role at all in this case. It says that you can "stand your ground" rather than retreating in a life-threatening situation. Zimmerman could not stand his ground rather than retreat because Travon had him on the ground and was banging his head into the sidewalk. You can't stand your ground if you can't retreat.

I'm sorry that Travon is dead. I'm sorry for his family. I wish that Zimmerman had not followed him. But what happened happened and the result is just.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on 14 July, 2013 06:50 AM :

Zimmerman's stalking of Trayvon Martin negates any claim of self-defense. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that Trayvon Martin was defending himself. The outcome of the trial is not just, and I think we are still to see the fall-out.

[ 14. July 2013, 11:52: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alan,
You are white, you are fairly safe.

My blonde, blue-eyed son was attacked and beaten by groups of African-American men several times while he was living in a big city.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Which only goes to prove that race relations in the US are in a parlous state.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It has been observed that black people are sometimes more suspicious and nervous of the motivations of black people nearby. I cannot recall the famous black person who related feeling this nervousness and being taken aback by his own reaction. But being suspicious of black people didn't bleach his skin!!
This can still be directly traced to white racism, though.

What's the rationale for tracing this back to white racism?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I can't answer for lilBuddha, but here's my answer:

When the worldview of those dominant in the culture (in this case, arguably, white males) conveys that X people are inferior, criminal, up to no good, etc., the entire culture absorbs that worldview to a greater or lesser extent.

Hence, under "separate-but-equal" education laws, small black children took on board that they weren't as smart, deserving, talented or industrious as small white children. (See Brown v. Board of Education)

It used to be standard practice in the US for newspapers to print the race of suspects when they were not white, but not indicate race when they were. The underlying assumption was the newspaper readers were white. (Thankfully, this is no longer the practice). Inevitably, this created the unconscious impression that criminals are overwhelmingly people of color. Since people of color of course DID read newspapers, they absorbed this impression too.

We all get exposed to the culturally-dominant views, and we all absorb them at least to some extent, regardless of whether we belong to the culturally-dominant group.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Copied from the closed thread:
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on 14 July, 2013 06:46 AM :

As I understand it the stand your ground law did not play a role at all in this case. It says that you can "stand your ground" rather than retreating in a life-threatening situation. Zimmerman could not stand his ground rather than retreat because Travon had him on the ground and was banging his head into the sidewalk. You can't stand your ground if you can't retreat.

[/QUOTE]

This analysis conveniently leaves out the fact that Zimmerman took the initiative here in leaving his vehicle to follow Martin and confront him. Had Zimmerman taken the dispatcher's advice, minded his own business and remained in his car, Martin could not have got Zimmerman on the ground.

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

Evidently the ice wasn't nearly as thin or slippery as I had thought. Zimmerman's acquittal is very troubling, to me. I suppose the jury had to wade through a lot of grey area, and discard information which was not pertinent; but I feel that the manslaughter charge was justified. It wasn't just an unavoidable accident.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I too thought manslaughter was the likeliest outcome. I saw only snippets of the trial as reported in the meejah, but it seems to me that what "Stand Your Ground" boiled down to in this instance was the fact that, in leaving his car against dispatcher's advice and following and confronting Martin, what Zimmerman was doing was questioning Martin's right to be where he (Martin) was.

IMO, "Stand Your Ground" is fundamentally a terrible idea, especially where 50 states now permit concealed carry, outside of the "castle" doctrine.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Having had a recent confrontation with a young black man (16-18 yrs)I would sympathize with Zimmerman IF Martin had "gotten into Zimmerman's face" as I experienced my confrontation.

If Martin had been white and the same lead-up to the fight had occurred, wouldn't he be seen as "a wise guy teenage punk"? And there would have been no story.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Indeed. I'm not 17, black, or male. If I found myself being followed and perhaps questioned by a midlife male stranger like Zimmerman, though, I might be excused for thinking Zimmerman was getting in my face.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Zimmerman may have a German surname, but he looks Hispanic. If he had had the crap beaten out of him by a really white cop, the media would have called him Hispanic. Saying Zimmerman is 'white' in this context his simply stating he is not Black, Asian, or Native American.

Secondly, the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt and the D.A.'s case just did not have the goods when it came to proving intent and disproving self-defence. They really should have gone with manslaughter with the option of knocking it down to involuntary manslaughter if they wanted a conviction. I have a suspicion that punting for murder 2 was a political rather than a rational decision given that the evidence for a Murder 2 conviction was not really there.

Personally I would have had Zimmerman for being a "felony wannabe" but that, unfortunately, is not on the statute book.

PD

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
if they wanted a conviction

I think you have inadvertently put your finger on it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Caesar never changes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
if they wanted a conviction
I think you have inadvertently put your finger on it.

This is possibly a factor.
------
A side note: Hispanic do not have a "look." Hispanics can be anything from pasty, pale white ( European only ancestors) to dark Black (sub-Saharan only ancestors.) To be fair, in most photos, Zimmerman does have the mestizo look most Americans associate with Hispanic.
----------

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alan,
You are white, you are fairly safe.
My blonde, blue-eyed son was attacked and beaten by groups of African-American men several times while he was living in a big city.

Taken in context, my statement more correctly says Alex is safe from the Zimmerman/Martin type of encounter. Yes, this is a statistical safety rather than an absolute.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Secondly, the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt and the D.A.'s case just did not have the goods when it came to proving intent and disproving self-defence. They really should have gone with manslaughter with the option of knocking it down to involuntary manslaughter if they wanted a conviction. I have a suspicion that punting for murder 2 was a political rather than a rational decision given that the evidence for a Murder 2 conviction was not really there.

PD

The jury was instructed to look at manslaughter if there was not enough evidence for murder. They looked at manslaughter so hard they sent back to court for further definition of it. They didn't find that there was enough evidence to meet manslaughter either.

I watched the entire trial and although I had been outraged at Zimmerman's behavior when I first read about it in the paper the trial convinced me that there was not enough evidence to convict on either charge. Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious of a young man standing in the rain, in the grass, looking at the windows of a condo for a long while, after they had experienced a series of burglaries. He had a duty as a volunteer neighborhood watch member to call the police. He had a duty to answer the operator's question as to the race of the suspect. He should have stayed in his car after the police told him to but the last thing the policeman said to him was, "Keep an eye on him." Zimmerman had lost sight of him and got out of the car to find out what direction he had gone. That much we know for sure.

Zimmerman says that it was at that point that Trayvon had circled behind him and jumped him. There were no actual witnesses to that but there were witnesses to Trayvon sitting on Zimmerman slamming his head on the ground and witnesses to the fact that Zimmerman was screaming for help. T

There are no laws against "following" someone even if that is what he had been doing. It's okay to get out of your car and walk in your own neighborhood, even if it's behind someone else.

There are no special laws making it worse for a white man to shoot a black man than vice versa and when someone bigger and stronger than you is beating you up you aren't required to ask if he is over eighteen before shooting him.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

orfeo:

quote:
Also, can we please stop presenting this as a whites vs blacks thing?

I don't think we should ignore what the Americans are saying; they are the ones most likely to understand the motivation of both parties concerned. I think it's also an older-people-vs-youth thing (young man walking down the street Must Be Up To No Good) and maybe a Lone-Gunslinger-Saves-The World thing (any problem can be solved if you have enough bullets*). But that doesn't mean that race is unimportant.

*Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Eyewitness testimony is terrifying. It is inaccurate, easily influenced and changes over time. Interviewing eyewitnesses is beyond the training of many police, it is far from straight forward. Especially if one truly wishes to ascertain what actually occurred. Laws really should change to exclude it unless there is no other evidence. Even when it is admitted, it should be done so with many caveats.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo:
quote:
Also, can we please stop presenting this as a whites vs blacks thing?
I don't think we should ignore what the Americans are saying; they are the ones most likely to understand the motivation of both parties concerned. I think it's also an older-people-vs-youth thing (young man walking down the street Must Be Up To No Good) and maybe a Lone-Gunslinger-Saves-The World thing (any problem can be solved if you have enough bullets*). But that doesn't mean that race is unimportant.

*Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Just a qualification here; it isn't all smiles and sunshine in the UK, either. Though there is a distinctly lower chance of being shot.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

@lilbuddha: No, it isn't. But I thought we were discussing an American case?

If this had happened in the UK Zimmerman could have been convicted of at least two things; carrying a weapon in a public place and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace (I think; I'm sure a lawyer will be along to correct me in a minute). Going around armed to the teeth is illegal here for precisely this reason; because frightened people with weapons in their hands are liable to cause mayhem.

They might have got him for manslaughter or murder too, if the incident had been caught by a CCTV camera.

[ 14. July 2013, 16:50: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you think that Trayvon somehow dragged Zimmerman out of his car? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

My understanding of the facts is that both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin had opportunities to avoid the confrontation. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, in which case none of this would have happened. But getting out of his car to see what Martin was up to isn't a crime, and doesn't become a crime just because the 911 dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that.

Martin was close to the home in which he was staying, and could have gone straight home. If he had done that, he'd still be alive. But "not going straight home" isn't a crime either.

So now we have two men walking around - Martin is 4 inches taller, and carrying iced tea. Zimmerman has a (legally-owned and carried) pistol.

Then something happens. Zimmerman said that Martin jumped him. This may or may not be true - there's no other evidence either way. The other possibility is that Zimmerman saw Martin and challenged him. Again, no evidence.

It is certain that there was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman received relatively mild injuries during this struggle, which concluded with Zimmerman shooting Martin.

Zimmerman said he was in fear of his life. To me, the relative mildness of his wounds aren't relevant - if someone is being hit, I'm not going to require him to assess whether his attacker is going to kill him or just punch him a bit - to me, any sustained assault is potentially life-threatening, and so grounds for using lethal force in self-defense.

So the question really comes down to "who started it". If Zimmerman provoked the fight with a gun on his hip, he doesn't get to claim self-defense - in that case, he would have certainly committed manslaughter, with a possibility of murder 2.

If Martin provoked the fight, it's almost certainly a lawful killing in self-defense.

And as far as I can see, the evidence just isn't there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman provoked or intended the confrontation, in which case he must be found not guilty (as indeed was the decision of the jury).

For the record, if Trayvon Martin had been a young white man in a hoodie buying snacks, and George Zimmerman had been a black neighborhood watch leader, my opinion would be the same.

It sounds like Martin's family is going to pursue a civil suit against Zimmerman (cf. OJ Simpson). That case would be tried on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt, and that could be a close call - a jury could, IMO, reasonably decide either way.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Meanwhile... I don't know why you even bother to have courts and judges and juries and all that, if you can just go with the rule white=innocent, black=guilty.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've read that Zimmerman had his nose broken and that Trayvon bashed his head against the sidewalk several times - which doesn't sound particularly 'minor' to me.

That said, it seems pretty dangerous to me to go after someone with a gun simply because you think they're acting suspiciously.

Once again, the 2nd Amendment is to blame.

Until the US sheds its love affair with the gun and its Hollywood Western style obsession with retributive violence these kind of incidents are going to happen again and again and again ...

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Meanwhile... I don't know why you even bother to have courts and judges and juries and all that, if you can just go with the rule white=innocent, black=guilty.

That sure looks like a shocking miscarriage. My sense is that Zimmerman was not guilty under Florida's outrageous "stand your ground" law, but it's hard to see how this is an even-handed application of a stupid law. Was she tried under laws that predated "stand your ground?"

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

According to that article, after unexpectedly encountering her estranged husband in their former home (whatever that means), she went outside to get her gun from her car, then went back inside and fired it (at him, he says; at the wall as a warning shot, she says.) The judge disallowed her attempt to invoke a "stand your ground" defense.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

The "stand your ground," law ultimately didn't figure in Zimmerman's case. "Stand your ground," says that the shooter in a self-defense case is not obligated to run away instead, even if the opportunity exists. Zimmerman was flat on his back with a young man sitting on his chest, pounding his nose and head. There was no opportunity to run.

Zimmerman's gun was concealed in it's holster under the shirt and didn't come into play until Martin grabbed for it. There was no swaggering up the sidewalk with a gun showing. There was no seeking after revenge, Mel Gibson style.

I don't think race had anything to do with this incident and if you replace the gun with a knife it could have happened anywhere.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to that article, after unexpectedly encountering her estranged husband in their former home (whatever that means), she went outside to get her gun from her car, then went back inside and fired it (at him, he says; at the wall as a warning shot, she says.) The judge disallowed her attempt to invoke a "stand your ground" defense.

Surely the bit in italics puts a dent in 'stand your ground' argument in the fact that she had, and took, an opportunity to 'retreat' and intentionally fetched her gun to shoot... people seem to be getting indignant about the rule of the law, but I would certainly bet that all that indignation wouldn't exist if the jury had found the defendant guilty (then it would have been praises all the way... fickle thing this indignation at being tried within the rules by a jury on the evidence presented!)
It's interesting watching and reading some of the coverage where one interviewed woman's argument effectively boiled down to: 'It didn't go the way I wanted and it found the 'white' man innocent, therefore the whole system is racist.'

[ 14. July 2013, 19:50: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The "stand your ground," law ultimately didn't figure in Zimmerman's case. "Stand your ground," says that the shooter in a self-defense case is not obligated to run away instead, even if the opportunity exists. Zimmerman was flat on his back with a young man sitting on his chest, pounding his nose and head. There was no opportunity to run.

You have repeated this before. AFAICS, it is false. Zimmerman was tracking his "assailant," and had been told by the police he called to stop doing that. If, once an altercation began, Zimmerman was losing, that is not self-defense in any state that lacks "stand your ground." But, AFAICS, the woman who went and got her gun and re-entered the dangerous situation was doing the same thing -- legal only in dumb-ass states like Florida, where the legislators appear to only value life if it is unborn.

--Tom Clune

[ 14. July 2013, 20:02: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to that article, after unexpectedly encountering her estranged husband in their former home (whatever that means), she went outside to get her gun from her car, then went back inside and fired it (at him, he says; at the wall as a warning shot, she says.) The judge disallowed her attempt to invoke a "stand your ground" defense.

"Warning shots" are decidedly awkward in law. Firing a gun is lethal force. You are justified in using lethal force if it is necessary to defend life, but if it's actually necessary, you'd be shooting at your assailant. Firing warning shots, and less far down the scale, "brandishing" a weapon, will land you in decidedly hot water.

If you pull a weapon, it had better be because you are prepared to follow through and kill your attacker if he doesn't back off. The minute you start saying something like "I was only trying to scare him off", "I wouldn't have actually shot him" etc., you will find that you are guilty of at least one criminal offense.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

May I ask tclune, whether you are saying that if I follow someone in the sense of tracking them, but do not confront them, and they attack me, I have no right of self defence except in states such as Florida ? Or do I only lose the right of self defence if I carry on tracking them after a confrontation ?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

IANAL, but my understanding is that you would be on very thin ice claiming self-defense of someone you had been tracking in most states. Once you leave the southern or western US, most states take a pretty dim view of shooting people.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you think that Trayvon somehow dragged Zimmerman out of his car? If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.
My understanding of the facts is that both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin had opportunities to avoid the confrontation. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, in which case none of this would have happened. But getting out of his car to see what Martin was up to isn't a crime, and doesn't become a crime just because the 911 dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that.

Martin was close to the home in which he was staying, and could have gone straight home. If he had done that, he'd still be alive. But "not going straight home" isn't a crime either.

So now we have two men walking around - Martin is 4 inches taller, and carrying iced tea. Zimmerman has a (legally-owned and carried) pistol.

Then something happens. Zimmerman said that Martin jumped him. This may or may not be true - there's no other evidence either way. The other possibility is that Zimmerman saw Martin and challenged him. Again, no evidence.

It is certain that there was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman received relatively mild injuries during this struggle, which concluded with Zimmerman shooting Martin.

Zimmerman said he was in fear of his life. To me, the relative mildness of his wounds aren't relevant - if someone is being hit, I'm not going to require him to assess whether his attacker is going to kill him or just punch him a bit - to me, any sustained assault is potentially life-threatening, and so grounds for using lethal force in self-defense.

So the question really comes down to "who started it". If Zimmerman provoked the fight with a gun on his hip, he doesn't get to claim self-defense - in that case, he would have certainly committed manslaughter, with a possibility of murder 2.

If Martin provoked the fight, it's almost certainly a lawful killing in self-defense.

And as far as I can see, the evidence just isn't there to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman provoked or intended the confrontation, in which case he must be found not guilty (as indeed was the decision of the jury).

For the record, if Trayvon Martin had been a young white man in a hoodie buying snacks, and George Zimmerman had been a black neighborhood watch leader, my opinion would be the same.

It sounds like Martin's family is going to pursue a civil suit against Zimmerman (cf. OJ Simpson). That case would be tried on balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt, and that could be a close call - a jury could, IMO, reasonably decide either way.

OK. So what we know is that a man carrying a gun first stalked someone then got out of the car with express intent to confront someone against the advice of the police, thus initiating the confrontation. I have heard absolutely not evidence saying anything other than that the gun wielding killer started the confrontation.

Which means that even if the man he killed broke his nose, the person acting in self defence was the person who was dealing with a hostile gunman looking for a confrontation. If we take the worst possible reading for Martin, and the best possible reading for Zimmerman, the only thing Trayveon Martin did wrong under the Stand Your Ground law was not to either (a) kill Zimmerman and then claim an act of self defence against someone who was literally stalking him with a gun or (b) take Zimmerman's gun away so he couldn't be shot.

If George Zimmerman had been the one killed does anyone think that Trayveon Martin would have been found not guilty?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
OK. So what we know is that a man carrying a gun first stalked someone then got out of the car with express intent to confront someone against the advice of the police, thus initiating the confrontation.

No, we don't know that. We know that Zimmerman got out of his car, with his gun, to keep track of where Martin was going, and that he did so against the advice of the 911 dispatcher.

"Express intent to confront" and "thus initiating the confrontation" are things that we don't know. I agree with you that if those statements were true, Zimmerman would have been guilty of at least manslaughter.

Following someone from a reasonable distance is not "initiating a confrontation".

quote:

Which means that even if the man he killed broke his nose, the person acting in self defence was the person who was dealing with a hostile gunman looking for a confrontation.

Yes, if Zimmerman was the assailant - let's say he chased Martin, caught up with him, grabbed him by the shoulder and asked where he thought he was going, or something like that - then he is guilty of at least manslaughter, and the wounds inflicted on him by Martin are probably justifiable in self-defence.

But we don't know that.

The prosecution claimed that Zimmerman attacked Martin. The defence claimed that Martin jumped Zimmerman and sucker punched him. The whole case rests on which one of those two things is true, and there just isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt either way.

quote:

If George Zimmerman had been the one killed does anyone think that Trayveon Martin would have been found not guilty?

Assuming the same initial circumstances, and then Martin gained control of Zimmerman's gun and shot him? Martin's hypothetical defense in this case would have the additional burden of explaining why Zimmerman, a man with a gun, chose to close with Martin in a hand-to-hand fight rather than keeping his distance. That shifts the balance a bit for me, but I don't know that it would take me as far as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Presumably if Martin was in the dock under these circumstances, his character and disposition towards violence would come in to play, and I don't know what evidence might be presented. The only thing I am aware of is a text message from a younger relative asking if Martin would teach him to fight. By itself, that's not worth much, but if the prosecution could establish a significant pattern of aggressive, violent behavior on his part, it might tip the balance. (But if Martin didn't take the stand, that might not be admissible.)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I followed the trial closely, and I think the jury reached the right verdict.

The physical evidence supported Zimmermann's story. He said that this young man appeared to be loitering, even though it was not a nice night to be outdoors. He radioed the dispatcher who asked for a description.* The dispatcher said, 'You don't have to follow him.' It's not certain that Zimmermann was in the car when he received this message. In any case, it was not an order.

Zimmermann lost contact with Martin for about four minutes, then Martin hit him in the face so hard that he went down flat on his back. Martin immediately straddled him and began banging his head against the concrete walkway. You can easily kill someone this way. Zimmermann was very afraid, and then it appeared to him that Martin was reaching for his gun. Zimmermann pulled out the gun and fired it.

Here is the evidence supporting Zimmermann's story.

Zimmermann's face had obviously suffered a blow
The back of Zimmermann's head had lacerations suggesting that it had been hit hard several times
The back of Zimmermann's jacket and trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
The knees of Martin's trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
Before the fatal gunshot, the only injury Martin received was to one of his hands. Presumably this resulted from his blows to Zimmermann
A man whose house was nearby came to see what was going on. He saw a man in a red jacket (Zimmermann) flat on his back being repeated struck by a man in black (Martin). The witness had seen a fighting technique on television known as Mixed Martial Arts. He said that the man on top was using a 'ground and pound' technique.

One more point in Zimmermann's favor. A detective who questioned him that evening falsely told him that the entire episode had be captured on video. Zimmermann expressed great relief, which he would not have done if his story had been false.

As far as racism is concerned, Zimmermann had never showed any signs of it. In fact, he was very well-liked by the black community because he insisted that an attack on a homeless black man by a well-connected white teenager be investigated. Also, one witness who testified at the trial was unable to be physically in the courtroom. She was an elderly black woman living in the gated community who had been robbed. Zimmermann did everything he could for her and she was grateful. The local black community did not want Zimmermann prosecuted. They thought he was a good guy.

*The media created a firestorm by reporting that Zimmermann said, 'He's acting suspiciously. He appears to be black.' In fact, Zimmermann reported a man acting suspiciously, and the dispatcher asked whether the man was black, white, or Hispanic. At least one TV network cut out the dispatcher's question and made Zimmermann seem racist. I guess they get more viewers with this kind of exciting stuff.

Also, the photos of Martin which were originally published showed him as a child rather than a teenager more than six feet tall.

Moo

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks Moo. I mean that. Because I started out reading you in no mood for any hint of justification for Zimmerman. At all. He was armed.

Now, as usual in these matters and just about all others, I believe everything.

If I was looking for justice, I wouldn't start here.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Another outsider's comments.

How is it that there can be laws that allow situations like this occur? Carrying a gun, confronting others because you have some ideas or thoughts about them, allowed to use it against the person? Have the police forces been privatised or kept from patrolling?

Stand your ground? That's certainly not from Sun Tzu! It's also not how dealing with confrontation is taught to people in human services here.

I am certain that the shooter would have been convicted any where in Canada (gun laws, involved himself in a situation that caused the death of another, i.e., manslaughter at minimum) and it'd be interesting to understand in what other countries he would not have been.

Finally on the black-white thing. This is a unique feature of the USA as far as I can tell from visits. It is part of everything there.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yes, Moo and I are the only two people on this thread that seem to have actually watched the entire trial and we both believe the jury came to the right conclusion.

I just heard on the news that there are protests across the country and death threats against the Zimmerman family.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just heard on the news that there are protests across the country and death threats against the Zimmerman family.

I have heard that the witness who testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmermann is also receiving threats.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eyewitness testimony is terrifying. It is inaccurate, easily influenced and changes over time. Interviewing eyewitnesses is beyond the training of many police, it is far from straight forward. Especially if one truly wishes to ascertain what actually occurred. Laws really should change to exclude it unless there is no other evidence. Even when it is admitted, it should be done so with many caveats.

In this case there is no other 3rd party evidence. No camera footage is available. So while I understand the sentiment, your proposal would not affect the case at hand.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Meanwhile... I don't know why you even bother to have courts and judges and juries and all that, if you can just go with the rule white=innocent, black=guilty.

Mandatory sentencing sucks massively, but does not appear relevant to your comment.

What IS relevant to your comment is at least 2 things that come to mind. One is selective reporting. Cherry picking individual cases to highlight whites getting light treatment and blacks getting heavy treatment is exactly that. Cherry picking. Because black people getting acquitted or white people getting convicted is not news, in racial politics terms.

Is it not utterly racist to complain every time a white person gets acquitted against the merits, or a black person gets punished heavily against the merits, unless you also complain whenever a black person is acquitted against the merits or a white person is punished heavily against the merits? Because those things do happen as well, you know.

The other relevant thing that springs to mind is the correlation between race and socioeconomic factors, which I suspect are far better predictors of outcomes than race ITSELF. What kind of people are in environments where there are going to be guns and violent disputes and a lot more reasons to be cranky?

You do get the occasional wealthy people having fights and in the USA at least there might be a nicely tailored pistol around, but in general high class 'civilised' people express their differences in different forms, with social and financial attacks rather than physical ones.

Also, richer people are better able to navigate through the legal system after an incident.

So if the distribution of black people across the socioeconomic spectrum was the same as the distribution of white people, I tend to think their legal outcomes would be on average the same. But the distribution isn't the same. I suspect THAT is why race correlates to poorer outcomes in the legal system, rather than being directly causative of the legal outcomes.

[ 14. July 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just heard on the news that there are protests across the country and death threats against the Zimmerman family.
I have heard that the witness who testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmermann is also receiving threats.

Moo

Because it's not about the truth for these people. It's about winning. It's about co-opting an individual incident into wider social and political fights, and to hell with whether the facts will actually support the co-opting.

If anyone has been threatening a witness, I hope there's a criminal prosecution. I know for certain threatening someone before they testify is a crime, and I'm fairly confident threatening someone after they testify is a serious offence as well.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet: How is it that there can be laws that allow situations like this occur? Carrying a gun, confronting others because you have some ideas or thoughts about them, allowed to use it against the person? Have the police forces been privatised or kept from patrolling?

This.

The police in my country (the Netherlands) is far from perfect, but they would have rules about approaching a person who they think is suspicious. For starters, I don't think that a police officer would be allowed to approach a suspect alone. Also, they would be trained in how to approach someone, how to calm him down, how to prevent the situation from escalating.

This would drastically reduce the chances of a teenager being able to throw an officer on the ground and pounding him (supposing for a moment I would believe that this is what Marvin did with Zimmerman), because at least the other officer would be able to do something. It would also give much more information about what happened, because the officers would be investigated whether they followed protocol etc.

Of course this isn't fail-safe. But allowing any untrained guy with a gun to approach someone whom he'd find suspect, and then trying to find out in court what happened based on unclear evidence, seems totally fucked-up to me. There aren't enough checks and balances in place here. This shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place.

I'm so glad that I don't live in the US.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Another outsider's comments.

How is it that there can be laws that allow situations like this occur?

Because state legislatures full of terrified white men pass Stand Your Ground laws, which are now on the books in several states, including mine.

Because ALL 50 states now allow concealed carry.

Because the NRA apparently owns this country under color of the Second Amendment.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Carrying a gun, confronting others because you have some ideas or thoughts about them, allowed to use it against the person? Have the police forces been privatised or kept from patrolling?

One of the things that happens when we vote in those who wish to "shrink government to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub" is that the more vulnerable among us are left with proportionately less police protection as we live in neighborhoods where the risk of violent crime is higher.

IMO, this has already led to quasi-police privatization. The wealthy set up gated communities for themselves, with private security forces. They live and work in privately-secured buildings. And "justice" often gets doled out to the individuals with the most expensive lawyers and/or the biggest "defense funds."

It would be interesting to know who contributed to Zimmerman's.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Stand your ground? That's certainly not from Sun Tzu! It's also not how dealing with confrontation is taught to people in human services here.

I am certain that the shooter would have been convicted any where in Canada (gun laws, involved himself in a situation that caused the death of another, i.e., manslaughter at minimum) and it'd be interesting to understand in what other countries he would not have been.

Finally on the black-white thing. This is a unique feature of the USA as far as I can tell from visits. It is part of everything there.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that two so-far-unmentioned factors play a role here:

1. A loo--oong history of white privilege has, as a side-product, created a profound sense of outrage. Every step "forward" for the unprivileged has been met in this country with violence -- individual violence, institutional violence, casual violence. To (mis)quote the poem, what happens to a raisin in the sun? Does it just dry up, or does it ultimately explode?

The American privileged white has very good reason to fear the long-simmered rage of the oppressed. We've been nurturing and engineering that rage for four solid centuries on these shores.

What happens when we keep dangling hopes before our oppressed, only to snatch them away again?

Emancipation, met with Jim Crow laws;
Ending segregated schools, met with violent protests and white flight from cities;
Ensuring voting rights, met with still more violence;
Affirmative action, ensuring lawsuits and ill-will on the part of underprivileged whites (we must keep the pot stirred!);

And now, our first "black" -- because of course, he's also white, but who ever acknowledges that, ever? -- President, utterly and completely stymied in office and will probably go down alongside Jimmy Carter as one of our least effective Presidents, but nevertheless kept in the eye of a whole storm of racist/other-inspired hatred . . .

And then there's # 2:

By mid-century (maybe sooner), the comfortable sense that the privileged white has had of being "backed up" by the rest of the white majority will vanish. Because whites will become (and in fact are already becoming) less visible, less numerous, and less important as a numerical proportion of the US populace -- just watch the TV commercials for an hour or so.

If you think these issues are not factors, I think you are naïve.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Of course they're factors and it's speeches like that, made daily on the internet and by the talking heads on news shows that keep the flames of outrage fanned to it's hottest point.

That's how George Zimmerman, a 29 year-old Hispanic man whose ancestors were probably living in poverty in another country while the American plantations were thriving, becomes the face of "white privilege," and held accountable for every cruel slave holder and lynch mob in history.

That's how Trayvon Martin, a young man with gold teeth ad tattoos who was repeatedly in trouble for starting fights, becomes the face of every sweet abused black child in history.

How is this fair? How does this promote equality? There may have been violence associated with the changes you mentioned above but the changes were made. When do people quit claiming the honors and outrages of their grandparents and start being responsible for their own actions?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

I think I see some of what went on that allowed someone to pursue another person, climb out of a car against police instructions, and then shoot and kill them. These are all facts that are not in doubt.

Zimmerman's case was self defence. In most juristictions the burden of proof for a plea of self defence is on the defendent as an affirmative defence - another example of an affirmative defence would be Entrapment. In the case of Entrapment, the defense needs to show that there is either a balance of probabilities or clear and compelling evidence that there was entrapment.

The instructions given to the jury were to treat the affirmative defence as if the burden of proof was still on the prosecution - in most common law juristictions (at least according to wikipedia) it isn't. In most common law juristictions Zimmerman would, to claim self defense after he had killed someone, demonstrate that the balance of probailities was that he was acting in self defense. Which, as my recap demonstrates, is a pretty hard sell. However Florida has a lethal "Stand Your Ground" law. Rather than the normal system where the defence needs to show that the defendant was justified because there is someone that they personally shot dead at point blank range, Florida is one of the few juristictions where the prosecution needs to still prove beyond reasonable doubt (OK, my legal terminology is old) that it wasn't self defence.

Which means that the Stand Your Ground law leads to increased homicides and disproportionately lets white on black killers go free.

And for all the defence wasn't explicitely based on SYG, the jury instructions were an outlier to normal jurisprudence for an affirmative defence. And as such were either grounds for a mistrial or based on something like that law.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I will have to do some research about all this fuss re Stand Your Ground laws. Because people are talking as if the common law rule was that you should run away if you could.

I'm not at all sure this is true. I'm pretty sure that self-defence rules, at least in this particular common law jurisdiction, never expected you to pick your best possible option. They only expected you to pick a reasonable option that was not disproportionate to the threat faced.

So I'm genuinely sceptical about how much the law has been changed in relevant USA states, as opposed from merely transferring case law into statute. The change that seems to have occurred is that it may be easier to justify the DEGREE of force used. But if that's the case Stand Your Ground is a misnomer. The previous rule was not Run Away And Don't Defend Yourself.

All of which is scarcely germane to the present case anyway. Either Zimmerman was stalking with intent, or he ended up in a situation where running away wasn't an option. The stand your ground notion simply doesn't arise unless he was confronted and an opportunity to flee. One scenario lacks him being the person confronted, and the other scenario la ks an escape route.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

The changes, as they are being made, and as those struggling for them are punished for their efforts, keep getting unmade.

Black unemployment is more than double the rate of white unemployment.

Black incarceration rates are 6-7 white incarceration rates.

Black poverty rates are nearly triple white poverty rates.

Blacks suffer poor health outcomes at nearly double to rate of whites.

The changes have arguably not been made; they are, rather a work in slow, uneven progress.

Maybe those at the bottom of the heap will start taking responsibility for themselves when those at the top of said heap start taking responsibility for . . .

. . . redistricting in ways that deliberately work against voters of color.
. . . purging voter lists of individuals who actually have the right to vote.
. . . changing voter ID laws in ways likely to prevent voters of color from voting.

. . . and get the hell out of the way of people of color.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think I see some of what went on that allowed someone to pursue another person, climb out of a car against police instructions, and then shoot and kill them. These are all facts that are not in doubt.

Zimmerman's case was self defence. In most juristictions the burden of proof for a plea of self defence is on the defendent as an affirmative defence - another example of an affirmative defence would be Entrapment. In the case of Entrapment, the defense needs to show that there is either a balance of probabilities or clear and compelling evidence that there was entrapment.

The instructions given to the jury were to treat the affirmative defence as if the burden of proof was still on the prosecution - in most common law juristictions (at least according to wikipedia) it isn't. In most common law juristictions Zimmerman would, to claim self defense after he had killed someone, demonstrate that the balance of probailities was that he was acting in self defense. Which, as my recap demonstrates, is a pretty hard sell. However Florida has a lethal "Stand Your Ground" law. Rather than the normal system where the defence needs to show that the defendant was justified because there is someone that they personally shot dead at point blank range, Florida is one of the few juristictions where the prosecution needs to still prove beyond reasonable doubt (OK, my legal terminology is old) that it wasn't self defence.

Which means that the Stand Your Ground law leads to increased homicides and disproportionately lets white on black killers go free.

And for all the defence wasn't explicitely based on SYG, the jury instructions were an outlier to normal jurisprudence for an affirmative defence. And as such were either grounds for a mistrial or based on something like that law.

Justinian this is COMPLETELY wrong. In Australia and in most common law jurisdictions the prosecution DOES have the legal burden of negativity self defence. Once some evidence has been presented to bring the defence into play, the burden is to disprove it. The obligation to put forward some evidence is often called an evidential burden, but your legal analysis beyond that is spectacularly wrong.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What's wrong with gold teeth and tattoos? Twilight your racism is showing, dear. Better put it away now.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But I think it raises an entirely different question: just what do people think a murder conviction would achieve?

Convicting gun-toting morons doesn't bring the victims back.

This implies you think murder should carry no legal penalty because there's no point.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's wrong with gold teeth and tattoos? Twilight your racism is showing, dear. Better put it away now.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But I think it raises an entirely different question: just what do people think a murder conviction would achieve?

Convicting gun-toting morons doesn't bring the victims back.
This implies you think murder should carry no legal penalty because there's no point.

There's plenty of point. There's deterrence of others, prevention of the perpetrator doing it again if they demonstrate a propensity for killing in a given set of circumstances, rehabilitation opportunities, service to the community, and heck even some good old fashioned punishment.

But my list doesn't include justice for Trayvon, because Trayvon is at a stage of life where earthly justice is a moot point. It also doesn't include a vague sense that the survivor of a fight must pay (having known 2 survivors of fights, both found not guilty, one AFTER he had even pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not one but two judges ruled that on the facts it was self defence). It also doesn't involve quenching decades or even centuries of black rage by sacrificing a really stupid Peruvian guy.

If people want the justice system to just deliver a bit of satisfactory payback, bring back the stocks in the town square. If that's not enough try lynch mobs. But let's save all the expense and time of trials if it's only okay when they get the outcome the crowd wants. If it's about leaving the crowd satisfied, we could have put Zimmerman in chains and whipped in the town square 17 months ago.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Justinian this is COMPLETELY wrong. In Australia and in most common law jurisdictions the prosecution DOES have the legal burden of negativity self defence. Once some evidence has been presented to bring the defence into play, the burden is to disprove it. The obligation to put forward some evidence is often called an evidential burden, but your legal analysis beyond that is spectacularly wrong.

On checking further you're right. Especially in Australia. Although on your other argument a guilty verdict would have done two things:
1: Removed someone who followed and then killed another human being from the streets.
2: Not encouraged others to follow in his footsteps.

And Twilight, who the fuck cares what racist stereotypes Martin fits?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Twilight: That's how George Zimmerman, a 29 year-old Hispanic man whose ancestors were probably living in poverty in another country while the American plantations were thriving, becomes the face of "white privilege," and held accountable for every cruel slave holder and lynch mob in history.

You just made the jury cry.

quote:
Twilight: That's how Trayvon Martin, a young man with gold teeth ad tattoos who was repeatedly in trouble for starting fights, becomes the face of every sweet abused black child in history.

And the way to deal with that is to allow any guy with a gun to go after him, without any checks or controls?

A teenager went to a store to buy candy. Under the Florida 'law enforcement' system, he ended up dead. Under another system, he would very probably have stayed alive. QED the Florida system sucks, big time. Black people are disproportionately the victims of that. And I can very well understand how Trayvon (with the faults he might have had, none of which he deserved to die for) became the symbol for this problem.

[ 15. July 2013, 01:42: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Justinian this is COMPLETELY wrong. In Australia and in most common law jurisdictions the prosecution DOES have the legal burden of negativity self defence. Once some evidence has been presented to bring the defence into play, the burden is to disprove it. The obligation to put forward some evidence is often called an evidential burden, but your legal analysis beyond that is spectacularly wrong.
On checking further you're right. Especially in Australia. Although on your other argument a guilty verdict would have done two things:
1: Removed someone who followed and then killed another human being from the streets.
2: Not encouraged others to follow in his footsteps.

And Twilight, who the fuck cares what racist stereotypes Martin fits?

Followed. And then killed.

Perfectly correct in a chronological sense. But it's the CAUSATIVE elements implicitly packed into that sentence that are at the heart of this whole case.

Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?

Followed, should have foreseen possibility could lead to a need to kill in self defence?

Followed, but for following, killing would not have arisen? Is that sufficient to be a crime?

Not only are there questions around which of these is true, there are questions around which of these is enough to make you a criminal as opposed to 'criminally' stupid. Being stupid doesn't become a crime merely because your stupidity caused exceptionally bad consequences. There's also a question about just HOW stupid you were. And that can only be assessed without the hindsight of knowing that a bad consequence actually eventuated.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Not only are there questions around which of these is true, there are questions around which of these is enough to make you a criminal as opposed to 'criminally' stupid. Being stupid doesn't become a crime merely because your stupidity caused exceptionally bad consequences. There's also a question about just HOW stupid you were. And that can only be assessed without the hindsight of knowing that a bad consequence actually eventuated.

To me, the best way to resolve this is: don't allow stupid people to follow someone with a gun. And the best way to achieve this is, don't allow anyone to follow someone with a gun, unless (s)he's a police officer we at least have some kind of control over.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
orfeo: Not only are there questions around which of these is true, there are questions around which of these is enough to make you a criminal as opposed to 'criminally' stupid. Being stupid doesn't become a crime merely because your stupidity caused exceptionally bad consequences. There's also a question about just HOW stupid you were. And that can only be assessed without the hindsight of knowing that a bad consequence actually eventuated.
To me, the best way to resolve this is: don't allow stupid people to follow someone with a gun. And the best way to achieve this is, don't allow anyone to follow someone with a gun, unless (s)he's a police officer we at least have some kind of control over.

I would agree, and have argued along much those lines
on most of our gun control threads.

But that is the fault of USA laws, not of Zimmerman. And that's precisely why I asked what a conviction of Zimmerman was supposed to achieve. Because within the rules of the system, I think there's a fair degree of difficulty in saying Zimmerman did something sufficiently stupid to be in breach of the rules. If its the rules that are stupid, you solve that by changing the rules, not by punishing the individual who demonstrated how stupid the rules were.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Should the advice be to young men in Florida (or similar jurisdictions) to buy gun and pre-emptively shoot people like Zimmerman? The winner is whomever shoots the other first? Given that Zimmerman had a gun, perhaps no charges would have even be laid. Except for the black-white thing, if you think that would operate.

I'm still back on the context, in Florida, that would seem to place more value on the right to carry a handgun, with more value placed on the right to point it at another person and kill him, than on human life.

Our police carry guns in Canada, and sometimes people carry them too, but when someone from the general public carries one or a shot is heard, generally we have the police intervene. Example.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?

Well, he did say "fucking punks" and "these assholes, they always get away".

It's not to hard to conclude, followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Orfeo: But that is the fault of USA laws, not of Zimmerman. And that's precisely why I asked what a conviction of Zimmerman was supposed to achieve. Because within the rules of the system, I think there's a fair degree of difficulty in saying Zimmerman did something sufficiently stupid to be in breach of the rules. If its the rules that are stupid, you solve that by changing the rules, not by punishing the individual who demonstrated how stupid the rules were.

But this is exactly why this is a wider social and political fight. Yes, this case has been co-opted into that fight, but that is what happens with cases like this. I don't support lying or threatening to achieve this, but I have absolutely no problem with the co-opting in itself.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Forgive me, I've haven't been following this case very closely:

Why the hell is the jury not racially diverse? From what I read, it was 6 women, none of them black. I thought juries were expected to aim to be representative of the population.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Orfeo: But that is the fault of USA laws, not of Zimmerman. And that's precisely why I asked what a conviction of Zimmerman was supposed to achieve. Because within the rules of the system, I think there's a fair degree of difficulty in saying Zimmerman did something sufficiently stupid to be in breach of the rules. If its the rules that are stupid, you solve that by changing the rules, not by punishing the individual who demonstrated how stupid the rules were.
But this is exactly why this is a wider social and political fight. Yes, this case has been co-opted into that fight, but that is what happens with cases like this. I don't support lying or threatening to achieve this, but I have absolutely no problem with the co-opting in itself.

Agreed in a sense. The problem is when there's an unwillingness to let go if the test case isn't as ideal as first thought.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?
Well, he did say "fucking punks" and "these assholes, they always get away".

It's not to hard to conclude, followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away.

He was bloody clumsy about carrying it out then. Ended up yelling for help while the punk was sitting on top of him.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?
Well, he did say "fucking punks" and "these assholes, they always get away".

It's not to hard to conclude, followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away.
He was bloody clumsy about carrying it out then. Ended up yelling for help while the punk was sitting on top of him.

Yep. Overestimated his ability to take the punk on with his bare hands. That didn't matter, though, did it, since he had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Agreed in a sense. The problem is when there's an unwillingness to let go if the test case isn't as ideal as first thought.

I don't know. I have the impression that black people in the US have the feeling that the system is stacked against them. If I were in such a situation, I guess I'd grasp any straw I could get, and be reluctant to let go too.

I'm not directly involved here, and I'm no citizen of the US or Florida, but for me the important thing would not be so much whether Zimmerman got convicted, but if something would change in this screwed-up system.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

2 for 2, LeRoc.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm so glad that I don't live in the US.

Because you feel so much safer in Brazil, with it's vastly lower murder rate and police of unimpeachable conduct?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?
Well, he did say "fucking punks" and "these assholes, they always get away".

It's not to hard to conclude, followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away.
He was bloody clumsy about carrying it out then. Ended up yelling for help while the punk was sitting on top of him.
Yep. Overestimated his ability to take the punk on with his bare hands. That didn't matter, though, did it, since he had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it.

I see, so your scenario is that he intended to kill, really wanted to use his bare hands, DIDN'T want to use the gun he had but was forced to resort to it when things didn't go his way.

Gee. I wonder why this scenario didn't past the beyond reasonable doubt test. It might just have something to do with Occam's Razor but that's just my loony off the cuff thinking.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I see, so your scenario is that he intended to kill,

You write legislation for a living and you can't read? That's scary. If you look at what you quoted I said he "followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away." Which one of those words means "kill"?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I see, so your scenario is that he intended to kill,
You write legislation for a living and you can't read? That's scary. If you look at what you quoted I said he "followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away." Which one of those words means "kill"?

The part where he's on a murder charge. If we're only talking about manslaughter then frankly the precise nature of his intent isn't all that relevant.

You're still proposing something fundamentally problematic, an intention to have a physical confrontation but not use his weapon. The fundamental problem is that it's much more plausible that if Zimmerman intended some kind of confrontation he would be prepared, and make use of his gun well before the time that he did.

The moment I heard that there was corroboration of zimmerman being on the bottom of the fight, I thought a conviction became unlikely. Because it is at least consistent with him not being the person who started the physical confrontation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Also, mousethief, you might care to scan back to the point where you entered the dialogue and I was talking about intent to kill. Pardon me for assuming you were talking about the same thing I was.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You write legislation for a living and you can't read? That's scary. If you look at what you quoted I said he "followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away." Which one of those words means "kill"?

Seeing that the "fucking punk" didn't get away is entirely consistent with following him at a distance, so as to be able to locate him for the police officer responding to his 911 call.

If the facts are as Zimmerman claimed in his defense - he was following Martin at a distance, lost sight of him, and then Martin jumped him, punched him, pushed him to the ground and began beating him, then the entire fault for the death of Trayvon Martin lies with Trayvon Martin.

That may or may not be an accurate description of what happened, but I don't think you can say that it's wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, there are plenty of people posting here who are upset with the fact that Zimmerman had a gun - they don't think anyone should be able to carry a gun for self-defense. That's fine, but you have to judge legal cases on what the law is, not on what you'd like it to be.

You could reasonably argue that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have felt confident enough to get out of his car and follow this young man that he thought was up to mischief, and so lay the blame for the whole incident on the fact that Zimmerman was armed. And you might be right - but that's not an argument about Zimmerman's guilt, it's an argument about whether concealed carry of firearms should be allowed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We were arguing about who swung the first fist (so to speak). As evidence for this I gave Zimmerman's inflammatory comments to the 911 operator, and indicated that this was prima facie evidence that he was looking for a scrap.

That is the context. If I had wanted to say that he was trying to kill Trayvon in this particular argument, I would have. That you decided to go mine my earlier comments to bring into it, is not my problem.

But really your argument still is full of shit. So Zimmerman didn't shoot first, but first tried to get Trayvon to swing at him, so he would have an excuse for shooting. That just means he knows Florida law better than you do, and what to to give himself an alibi.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Mebbe blacks in America should start packing.

I meant to say, packing heat. Not their bags, but heat.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

But really your argument still is full of shit. So Zimmerman didn't shoot first, but first tried to get Trayvon to swing at him, so he would have an excuse for shooting. That just means he knows Florida law better than you do, and what to to give himself an alibi.

If Zimmerman, with his gun on his hip, accosts Martin and aggressively demands to know what he's doing, one could certainly view that as provoking the confrontation, which means he doesn't get to claim self-defense.

If, on the other hand, Zimmerman is following Martin from some distance away, he's not provoking anything.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

Why the hell is the jury not racially diverse? From what I read, it was 6 women, none of them black. I thought juries were expected to aim to be representative of the population.

Five white women, one "black or Hispanic" woman.

The jury pool is selected at random from among the population. There is no stratified sampling to ensure a representative mix of ethnicities, sexes, levels of education, political views or anything else in the pool. Then, of course, the prosecution and the defense get to throw out people they think would vote against them. I'd imagine that Zimmerman's lawyer was binning every black face that showed up.

Here, by the way, are descriptions of the six jurors.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Leorning Cnih--[

QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

If Zimmerman, with his gun on his hip, accosts Martin and aggressively demands to know what he's doing, one could certainly view that as provoking the confrontation, which means he doesn't get to claim self-defense.

If, on the other hand, Zimmerman is following Martin from some distance away, he's not provoking anything. [/QUOTE]

If a stranger were following you in the dark, wouldn't you consider it a provocation?

I've had it happen. Fortunately, I was able to get away. But it was terrifying.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I see, so your scenario is that he intended to kill,
You write legislation for a living and you can't read? That's scary. If you look at what you quoted I said he "followed with intent to see the fucking punk didn't get away." Which one of those words means "kill"?

Tone it down, this is not Hell.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eyewitness testimony is terrifying. It is inaccurate, easily influenced and changes over time. Interviewing eyewitnesses is beyond the training of many police, it is far from straight forward. Especially if one truly wishes to ascertain what actually occurred. Laws really should change to exclude it unless there is no other evidence. Even when it is admitted, it should be done so with many caveats.
In this case there is no other 3rd party evidence. No camera footage is available. So while I understand the sentiment, your proposal would not affect the case at hand.

I understand. I was making a point to those who mention eyewitness testimony; that it is unreliable, therefore not a strong indication of what actually occurred.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

So if the distribution of black people across the socioeconomic spectrum was the same as the distribution of white people, I tend to think their legal outcomes would be on average the same. But the distribution isn't the same. I suspect THAT is why race correlates to poorer outcomes in the legal system, rather than being directly causative of the legal outcomes.

I agree with the exception of the sentence I emphasised. I do not believe this because of the causes of the distribution across the socioeconomic spectrum is not the same.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The US has a huge problem with innocent or wrongly-convicted people going to prison. The Innocence Project helps them. Their article "Racial Bias In The Justice System" talks about some of the disparities.

BTW, there's a move to press federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman.

The NPR article "Groups Call Zimmerman Verdict A 'Miscarriage'" includes comments from the head of the NAACP, the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and several other people.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Cases like this just go to show the insanity of such laws like stand your ground etc. Thank God I don't live in America.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

If a stranger were following you in the dark, wouldn't you consider it a provocation?

I've had it happen. Fortunately, I was able to get away. But it was terrifying.

I've been walking in the dark late at night several times on my current North American trip. Including about 10 minutes ago.

On some of those trips, I get a bit scared when someone is nearby. I know it's probably just another ordinary person sharing the same route, but the irrational part of my brain wants to jump to disastrous conclusions about what they're up to.

One of the scariest possibilities of all is that they'll jump to some kind of irrational conclusion about what I'M up to, consider my actions a provocation, and be the kind of paranoid person who carries a gun for protection.

This is precisely why I am against people arming themselves: thanks in no small part to the media, the odds of someone believing they're under attack are actually far higher than the odds of them BEING under attack. Having people armed and ready to respond to PERCEIVED threats and provocations is a recipe for greater problems.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Orfeo--

I wasn't talking about a gun. IIRC, you said upthread that following someone wasn't a provocation. And I don't think you limited that to "for shooting someone".

I take your point about people responding to an innocent situation out of fear. But *really* being followed isn't an uncommon experience. On the occasion I mentioned, the man really was following me with purpose, and keeping to shadows and doorways. I've been followed in broad daylight, too, and seen it happen to other people.

Z set the tragedy in motion with that gun. And, per news reports, he specifically bought one *not equipped with a safety*. If there'd been a safety, or Z had stashed the gun in the car, or stayed in the car, or simply driven home, Z and M might have been spared the entire mess.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Having not watched the trial, I am not going to comment on the evidence. Hearing some of the things that went on makes me wonder about the competency of some of the attorneys involved, but I cannot comment on how that affected the verdict.

What I can say is that the trial was not about racism in the US.

It was not about whether or not our gun laws are just.

I was not about any of the other issues people have read into the trial.

It was about whether or not Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime at that particular moment in time and if so, what crime it was.

It was about proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the eyes of the jury the prosecution did not prove that Mr. Zimmerman committed a crime that day beyond a reasonable doubt.

If any of you were to be charged with a crime would you prefer the trial to be about what you did or didn't do? Or would you prefer the trial to be about higher moral issues that may or may not bear upon your particular circumstance?

Yes, dear Lord, there is racism in the US. There are shit stupid gun laws in the US as well. We are an imperfect people. There, I have admitted it.

A lot of folks have posited that the results of one trial about a particular set of circumstances proves a larger point about our society here in the US. The fact that such a position is filled with fallacies seems to only fan the flames higher.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I don't pretend to know what the law may be in Florida, but from what I've read, it seems strange that Zimmerman was charged with murder. Those prosecuting would have known both what they needed to prove and what Zimmerman would be going to say at the trial; they knew that Zimmerman would be saying that he acted in self defence.

Now in Florida, the law may well be different, but while self-defence here is a defence to murder, use of excessive force simply means that a jury is entitled to convict on manslaughter. I'm surprised that the prosecutor did not proceed on a manslaughter charge and run a case that if the jury believed what Zimmerman said, what he did was excessive. There probably would have been much more chance of such an submission succeeding than the more difficult one of proving all the necessary elements of a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

The local district attorneys did not want to file charges at all because they thought Zimmermann could prove self-defense. There was a public outcry (not from the local black community, who liked Zimmermann) and the case was taken over by higher authorities.

Moo

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Followed. And then killed.

Perfectly correct in a chronological sense. But it's the CAUSATIVE elements implicitly packed into that sentence that are at the heart of this whole case.

Followed with intent to kill, successfully carried out?

Followed, should have foreseen possibility could lead to a need to kill in self defence?

Followed, but for following, killing would not have arisen? Is that sufficient to be a crime?

Followed, and deliberately and against police instructions got out of a car to confront. We know that Zimmerman, armed with a gun, approached Martin - and not the other way around. We know that Zimmerman was advised, by the police call operator, not to get out of the car. We know that directly as a consequence of Zimmerman's actions a schoolchild was shot.

All we do not know is whether Zimmerman made an entirely unprovoked attack on Martin, or whether Martin, after being threatened by a man with a gun made a counter-attack leaving no DNA on Zimmerman's clothes.

And for the part that makes Zimmerman IMO definitely guilty enough to be locked up, he started a confrontation while armed with a gun. Which means that either this was, as it appears to be, a hate crime. Or he is merely so dangerous to his fellow men that he should be prevented from getting within five feet of a gun ever again.

Even with a best possible reading of Zimmerman's actions, he was the one who first stalked and terrorised a schoolkid by driving after him slowly in a car, and then shot him. As such he is a serious and demonstrable danger to peaceful members of society.

And the second Zimmerman got out of that car against police advice, the mere idea that he was an innocent party rather than the person forcing the confrontation goes out of the window.

I think we can say beyond reasonable doubt "Followed first in a car and then on foot with stated intent to confront in a hostile and threatening manner while armed with a gun that directly and unequivocally lead to the death of a schoolchild."

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Moo, thanks for that - I had not picked that up in the news reports here.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dave W.: Because you feel so much safer in Brazil, with it's vastly lower murder rate and police of unimpeachable conduct?

Oh, Brazil is far from perfect. And I've looked into the barrel of a gun here much more often than I would care for. But if someone would shoot me here, I'd have a much bigger chance that the one with the gun would be considered the guilty party, for whatever comfort that might bring.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Tortuf: If any of you were to be charged with a crime would you prefer the trial to be about what you did or didn't do? Or would you prefer the trial to be about higher moral issues that may or may not bear upon your particular circumstance?

We are not having a trial here. We are discussing things on an internet forum.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
We know that Zimmerman, armed with a gun, approached Martin - and not the other way around.

No. Zimmermann says he lost sight of Martin until Martin suddenly appeared and hit him in the face, knocking him to the ground

quote:
We know that Zimmerman was advised, by the police call operator, not to get out of the car.

No. It is not certain that Zimmermann was in the car at the time the dispatcher told him he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference between telling someone they don't have to do something and advising them not to do it.

quote:
We know that directly as a consequence of Zimmerman's actions a schoolchild was shot.

The 'schoolchild' was a seventeen-year-old who was more than six feet tall. He frequently got into fights and enjoyed them. Apparently he was a very good fighter.

Moo

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
We know that Zimmerman was advised, by the police call operator, not to get out of the car.
No. It is not certain that Zimmermann was in the car at the time the dispatcher told him he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference between telling someone they don't have to do something and advising them not to do it.

I guess we speak different languages. When my mother used to tell me that I didn't have to answer back, she was most definitely advising me not to.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's wrong with gold teeth and tattoos? Twilight your racism is showing, dear. Better put it away now.

Only you would get away with calling me a racist in Purgatory. How dare you? If you think gold teeth and tattoos are only seen on Arfican Americans then you are the racist here.

I mentioned those self-inflicted adornments because they are chosen by gang members of all races to indicate a certain toughness and so offset the ridiculous idea that because Martin was carrying candy in his pocket he must be still very much a child. My 60 year old husband eats Skittles.

My post was all about how stereotypes play into the public conscious and that should have been obvious since I began with Porridge's premise about white privilege and how I didn't think Zimmerman was a good fit anymore than Martin was a good fit for innocent little boy.

But MT isn't the only one who called me a racist. It's come to this. If a court case comes up with one person white and the other black, you had all better side with the black -- otherwise you'll be called a racist, don't bother with the evidence.

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
We know that Zimmerman was advised, by the police call operator, not to get out of the car.
No. It is not certain that Zimmermann was in the car at the time the dispatcher told him he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference between telling someone they don't have to do something and advising them not to do it.
I guess we speak different languages. When my mother used to tell me that I didn't have to answer back, she was most definitely advising me not to.

--Tom Clune

I would suggest that the interactions between mother and child are significantly different to the interactions between state employee and citizen over whom the state employee has some authority.

Indeed, during some legal training which I received (as a children's social worker, in the UK), the lawyer training us argued that even 'advising' somebody to do or not to do something might not be a strong enough form of wording in some circumstances (we can probably all think of times when we've chosen to reject another person's advice, for better or worse reasons and outcomes). This lawyer argued that for avoidance of any doubt, when it really matters, we should 'tell' parents what to do or not to do. Consider the following examples:

* Social worker: "You don't need to leave your five-year-old home alone looking after your six-month-old baby while you go out partying all night."
* Social worker: "I am advising you not to leave your five-year-old home alone looking after your six-month-old baby while you go out partying all night."
* Social worker: "I am telling you not to leave your five-year-old home alone looking after your six-month-old baby while you go out partying all night."

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I just came across something interesting in today's Roanoke Times.

The president of the Norfolk NAACP branch has apologized for making the following statement on his personal Facebook page.

quote:
I wonder why it is that we are always willing to say someone who clearly had a shaky past was the victim. Are we blinded about why Trayvon was at his dad's house in the first place, and why he wasn't at home at the time he was shot? Please think logically and not racially.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: The 'schoolchild' was a seventeen-year-old who was more than six feet tall. He frequently got into fights and enjoyed them. Apparently he was a very good fighter.

He so deserved to die because of this [Roll Eyes]

Once, I was supposed to meet a friend in a neighbourhood centre somewhere in a Brazilian city. Because I didn't have a car at the time, I took a taxi to this neighbourhood centre. I didn't find my friend there, but I knew I lived a couple of hundred yards down the same road, so I decided to walk to his house.

While I was walking through that street, a car followed me. It stayed beside me, and matched my speed exactly. If I would walk faster, it would go faster to. If I stopped, it would stop too.

It utterly and completely freaked me out. I didn't know who was in the car, and it didn't take a big leap of imagination to assume they were armed. What should I do? Should I try to look and see who was inside the car? But maybe they might take this as a provocative action. Should I scream or run? To where? There was nobody there. A situation like this is absolutely terrifying.

Lucky, the taxi driver was still in the same street and he saw what was happening. He pulled up next to me, opened his door "Get in!" and drove off at 80mph. My heart was pounding, I could hardly breathe, and it took me ages to recover.

Following someone in a car like this is a confrontation already.

Following up on the answer I gave to Tortuf earlier, I think we should make a distinction between what happens in the jury room and the wider discussion within society.

I agree with him that political considerations shouldn't have a place within the jury room (assuming for a moment that I'd like the idea of a jury). They should only look at the evidence and that's that.

But the wider discussions about this case can (and in my opinion should) be political. What is the role of people who behave like semi-law inforcers without proper controls or structures? Black people feel disproportionately victimized by this, is this something we should address? Discussions like this are completely acceptible (and in my opinion, necessary). And race does take a part in them.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
No. Zimmermann says he lost sight of Martin until Martin suddenly appeared and hit him in the face, knocking him to the ground

We know Zimmerman approached Martin with intent to confront. The only question there is whether Martin [i]also[/i approached to confront the armed man who had been following him and was soon to shoot him.

quote:
No. It is not certain that Zimmermann was in the car at the time the dispatcher told him he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference between telling someone they don't have to do something and advising them not to do it.

Politeness, mostly. And the fact that a police dispatcher has no legal authority but does have legal responsibility if their guidance is followed.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
But MT isn't the only one who called me a racist. It's come to this. If a court case comes up with one person white and the other black, you had all better side with the black -- otherwise you'll be called a racist, don't bother with the evidence.

Bollocks. It has come to the fact that if a gunman approaches someone seemingly minding his own business with intent to confront and then shoots him then that on its own is almost beyond reasonable doubt. And that America in particular is a country in which lynching black people has been an idea of a good day out less than a hundred years ago. And that if you are relying on racial stereotypes to provide evidence that the black man deserved to be killed (as you were) the statements you are making are deeply problematic.

And if we're talking about people carrying things to prove their toughness, carrying a gun is pretty near top of the list. Far above any bling anyone has.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

1. We can look at the specific trial of George Zimmerman, the testimony submitted by the witnesses, and determine that, on the basis of existing law, submitted testimony, charges brought, the evidentiary "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, and instructions to the jury, the acquittal of George Zimmerman on all counts was (or was not) a justifiable or defensible outcome.

It appears that the outcome was justifiable or defensible, perhaps even inevitable.

2. We can also look at the existing law, and, based on the outcome of this trial, justifiably conclude that one or more laws involved lead to problematic outcomes.

Whether or not SYG law was invoked, it was SYG that provided some legal basis for the defendant's actions.

3. We can also look at the submitted evidence and question any part of it. That's one of the things that happens in jury rooms (anyone who's served on a jury will know this). Some jurors will believe or disbelieve some of the testimony, and this may be because the testimony itself is contradictory in nature (I saw one medical person testify that Zimmerman's head wounds seemed consistent with hitting the ground once, not several times) seems not to "add up;" it may also be because of some kind of juror-held prejudice about the testimony, the circumstance described, or the testifier.

4. We can also question the wisdom of framing the specific charges which form the basis of the trial, and/or the judge's instructions to the jury.

5. And finally, we can examine the larger social and/or judicial contexts in which the trial takes place, and whether and/or how this specific trial relates to, means, or tells us anything about those contexts.

ISTM that most of the post-verdict protesting going on is a response to this latter. An unarmed young man was shot and killed. No one is being held accountable for that death. From the distance, this certainly has the earmarks of a miscarriage of justice, and the racial identities of the victim and the shooter add to the perception, even if the perception itself is off-the-mark.

In reality, there are many "victims" in this situation. George Zimmerman is victimized, in that his future has been irrevocably altered, probably for the worse.

The people of Florida are victimized by the existence of a law which apparently raises the likelihood of possibly innocent citizens being shot with apparent impunity.

Our social institutions are victimized when such problematic outcomes render them, in the eyes of many (justifiably or not), untrustworthy and unjust.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
But MT isn't the only one who called me a racist. It's come to this. If a court case comes up with one person white and the other black, you had all better side with the black -- otherwise you'll be called a racist, don't bother with the evidence.
Bollocks. And that if you are relying on racial stereotypes to provide evidence that the black man deserved to be killed (as you were) the statements you are making are deeply problematic.

I most certainly was not and any reading of my post as anyone "deserving to die," argument is absolutely ridiculous. By all the evidence we have before us, Trayvon started the physical contact and was using his superior height, expertise, and experience as a fighter to beat Zimmerman in a manner that endangered his life. This case was not about whether or not anyone deserved to die but whether or not Zimmerman's life was really in danger in which case his justification for shooting in self-defense was satisfied.

If you look at this as a criminal case for one second you would then read my remarks and Moo's as evidence for the Zimmerman defense that Trayvon was an experienced, possibly dangerous fighter. Reading them as racist only proves that you've decided to ignore all that and only look for racism where none exists.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

If a stranger were following you in the dark, wouldn't you consider it a provocation?

If a stranger was following me from a reasonable distance, I would certainly be scared, and would want to get away, but I wouldn't consider it grounds to attack that stranger.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
While I was walking through that street, a car followed me. It stayed beside me, and matched my speed exactly. If I would walk faster, it would go faster to. If I stopped, it would stop too.

This happened to me, walking home in the early hours through deserted suburban streets in Birmingham, UK. A car pulled up ahead of me. I thought nothing of it, walked on. It moved on and pulled up ahead of me again... and again... and again... leapfrogging me, and I was coming to where I would cross the road and go down an alley between a graveyard an a park, one streetlamp halfway along. My heart was in my mouth.

Nothing happened, presumably - whatever he had in mind - he gave up and drove off. What would I have done if he'd come after me? Run like hell in the first place, but if he'd caught up with me? I was a young man then, but hadn't had a serious fight in my life. And the paradox is that if you feel vulnerable, you get vicious. You know you have perhaps just one chance to disable your attacker or you're dead. And then, if that hadn't been England, maybe he'd have had a gun to pull on me and claim self defence.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

* sigh *

And, as further evidence that context really does influence perception, I just clicked on a headline expecting to read about yet another horrific mass shooting in the US.

The headline? "Pro golfer shoots 59."

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
We know Zimmerman approached Martin with intent to confront.

Stating that over and again doesn't make it true. ISTM very plain that we don't know that.

Mousethief, my initial response was very similar to yours. However, Moo (who has evidently followed the case closely) has made me think again with some compelling reasons and arguments. In particular the post here that had a lot in it that made me reconsider my initial stance:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The physical evidence supported Zimmermann's story. He said that this young man appeared to be loitering, even though it was not a nice night to be outdoors. He radioed the dispatcher who asked for a description.* The dispatcher said, 'You don't have to follow him.' It's not certain that Zimmermann was in the car when he received this message. In any case, it was not an order.

Zimmermann lost contact with Martin for about four minutes, then Martin hit him in the face so hard that he went down flat on his back. Martin immediately straddled him and began banging his head against the concrete walkway. You can easily kill someone this way. Zimmermann was very afraid, and then it appeared to him that Martin was reaching for his gun. Zimmermann pulled out the gun and fired it.

Here is the evidence supporting Zimmermann's story.

Zimmermann's face had obviously suffered a blow
The back of Zimmermann's head had lacerations suggesting that it had been hit hard several times
The back of Zimmermann's jacket and trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
The knees of Martin's trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
Before the fatal gunshot, the only injury Martin received was to one of his hands. Presumably this resulted from his blows to Zimmermann
A man whose house was nearby came to see what was going on. He saw a man in a red jacket (Zimmermann) flat on his back being repeated struck by a man in black (Martin). The witness had seen a fighting technique on television known as Mixed Martial Arts. He said that the man on top was using a 'ground and pound' technique.

One more point in Zimmermann's favor. A detective who questioned him that evening falsely told him that the entire episode had be captured on video. Zimmermann expressed great relief, which he would not have done if his story had been false.

As far as racism is concerned, Zimmermann had never showed any signs of it. In fact, he was very well-liked by the black community because he insisted that an attack on a homeless black man by a well-connected white teenager be investigated. Also, one witness who testified at the trial was unable to be physically in the courtroom. She was an elderly black woman living in the gated community who had been robbed. Zimmermann did everything he could for her and she was grateful. The local black community did not want Zimmermann prosecuted. They thought he was a good guy.

*The media created a firestorm by reporting that Zimmermann said, 'He's acting suspiciously. He appears to be black.' In fact, Zimmermann reported a man acting suspiciously, and the dispatcher asked whether the man was black, white, or Hispanic. At least one TV network cut out the dispatcher's question and made Zimmermann seem racist. I guess they get more viewers with this kind of exciting stuff.

Did any of that make you think again?

For me, Gam summed it up here:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Once again, the 2nd Amendment is to blame.

Until the US sheds its love affair with the gun and its Hollywood Western style obsession with retributive violence these kind of incidents are going to happen again and again and again ...

The system is screwed up, from the gun laws to the vigilante culture they create. But within that system, I think it's perfectly reasonable that Zimmerman was acquitted.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
We know that Zimmerman, armed with a gun, approached Martin - and not the other way around.

No, Justinian, we precisely don't know that. Part of Zimmerman's defense was that Martin jumped him.

quote:

We know that Zimmerman was advised, by the police call operator, not to get out of the car. We know that directly as a consequence of Zimmerman's actions a schoolchild was shot.

Yes, had Zimmerman stayed in his car, nothing would have happened, but the chain of causation is not quite so direct.

quote:

All we do not know is whether Zimmerman made an entirely unprovoked attack on Martin, or whether Martin, after being threatened by a man with a gun made a counter-attack leaving no DNA on Zimmerman's clothes.

No, you are making up "threatened by a man with a gun" out of whole cloth. There is no evidence that that happened. We know that Zimmerman got out of his car to keep track of where Martin was, and we know that a little later the two were on the floor fighting. There is no evidence for what happened in the middle.

I think you are viewing the case through your prejudice against guns. You think Zimmerman is automatically in the wrong because he had a gun. That is a valid argument to make in the gun control debate, but it has nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence under the present law.

quote:
he started a confrontation while armed with a gun.

Again, we don't have evidence for who started the confrontation. Zimmerman getting out of his car is not starting a confrontation.

quote:

And the second Zimmerman got out of that car against police advice, the mere idea that he was an innocent party rather than the person forcing the confrontation goes out of the window.

Being followed from a reasonable distance is not, in itself, confrontational. I would certainly expect Martin to feel scared because some stranger was following him, but following someone at a distance is not provocation that rises to grounds for a preemptive assault.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zoey:
I would suggest that the interactions between mother and child are significantly different to the interactions between state employee and citizen over whom the state employee has some authority.

Indeed, during some legal training which I received (as a children's social worker, in the UK), the lawyer training us argued that even 'advising' somebody to do or not to do something might not be a strong enough form of wording in some circumstances (we can probably all think of times when we've chosen to reject another person's advice, for better or worse reasons and outcomes).

I would not argue that the dispatcher chose the best possible way of relaying a strong suggestion. I seriously doubt that the dispatcher had the legal authority to order Z to stop following M, but there is no doubt that the advice could have been expressed more forcefully.

Nonetheless, it strains my credulity to place any interpretation on that locution other than advising Z to stop following M. Of course, in wildly different contexts, the locution could mean something else. For example, if a course advisor were to tell a student that they didn't need to take two years of a foreign language, it would not necessarily mean that they were advising against doing so. But this context does not lend itself to an interpretation of disinterested enumeration of equally acceptable options. That was my only point in that post.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If, on the other hand, Zimmerman is following Martin from some distance away, he's not provoking anything.

Nope. Following someone is (as Trayvon himself said) creepy, and thus inculcates fear. Trayvon had every right, according to "stand your ground," to defend himself proactively.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Tone it down, this is not Hell.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

True. Toning down.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

If a stranger were following you in the dark, wouldn't you consider it a provocation?

If a stranger was following me from a reasonable distance, I would certainly be scared, and would want to get away, but I wouldn't consider it grounds to attack that stranger.

It is in Florida.

Tortuf, the problem with "this case was about George Zimmerman, not about race" is that you (generic you) can say that about every case, and then *paching!* there is no racism in our legal system. How handy.

[ 15. July 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. Following someone is (as Trayvon himself said) creepy, and thus inculcates fear. Trayvon had every right, according to "stand your ground," to defend himself proactively.

No.

It is certainly creepy. It is neither assault, nor threatened assault. The distinction matters.

And yes, he had every right to defend himself, and no obligation to retreat. This is emphatically not the same as a right to attack a person who was walking legally on public property, even if that person appeared to be following him.

[ 15. July 2013, 15:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. Following someone is (as Trayvon himself said) creepy, and thus inculcates fear. Trayvon had every right, according to "stand your ground," to defend himself proactively.

If "inculcating fear" was sufficient to trigger a right to proactively attack someone under "stand your ground" then any small person (particularly a woman) would have the right to blow away any large stranger that she happened to encounter on a dimly lit street at night, in a darkened parking lot and so on.

This is obviously stupid, and not at all what the law says. There has to be an attack (either actual or obviously threatened) before you can defend against it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. Following someone is (as Trayvon himself said) creepy, and thus inculcates fear. Trayvon had every right, according to "stand your ground," to defend himself proactively.
No.

It is certainly creepy. It is neither assault, nor threatened assault. The distinction matters.

Depending on the circumstances, following someone could actually fall under Florida's stalking statutes.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on the circumstances, following someone could actually fall under Florida's stalking statutes.

Yes, but stalking requires "repeatedly". If Zimmerman had kept watch for Martin, and started following him around every time he went to the store, you would be entering stalking territory. Following him one one occasion doesn't qualify, even if it was for a few minutes.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depending on the circumstances, following someone could actually fall under Florida's stalking statutes.
Yes, but stalking requires "repeatedly". If Zimmerman had kept watch for Martin, and started following him around every time he went to the store, you would be entering stalking territory. Following him one one occasion doesn't qualify, even if it was for a few minutes.

Just pointing out that your implication that following someone around could never be considered either a threat or a criminal activity is incorrect.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

People keep stating things as "known" when they are, in fact not known.
Known
Zimmerman
-followed Martin in car
-called police
-followed Martin on foot
-shot Martin
Martin
-was killed by Zimmerman
Someone
-screamed for help
The rest is interpretation or, at best, indicative.
----------
A comment on point 1. of Porridge's last post.
A verdict is simply a verdict. It does not indicate whether a case truly met a standard, or that the judge or jury truly thought it did.
I believe the basic standards of systems based on English Common Law are generally solid. The application is uneven. And, IMO, some of the special standards (I.e. Stand Your Ground) are ludicrous.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I don't know what it is about the word 'child' that is expected to make all of us go soft and gooey and think of sweetness and innocence no matter what the context. But it doesn't work with me. And it actually disturbs the hell out of me in some contexts where the imPlication is that ADULTS can be treated worse and it will be fine.

Adults can buy candy. Adults can walk along the street. Adults can be wrestled to the ground. Children can carry guns.

The fact that one of the people in this whole unfortunate mess was a teenager rather than 21 really doesn't mean shit unless you're trying to win an argument by appealing to emotional buttons rather than facts. We are not talking about someone who is young enough to be incapable of being a physical threat. He would not, being a few years older, miraculously become someone who deserved to die (and it's ridiculous to suggest anyone said anything about deserving it - this death is a tragedy, but a trial is about whether it's a CRIME).

I fundamentally don't understand this desire to prove that one person here is 'right' and one is 'wrong'. Or that one is 'good' and the other is 'bad'. The logical fallacies involved in arguing that if Trayvon was a good child and doing nothing wrong, THEN ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY are truly staggering.

This is NOT a contest between 2 people. It is a trial of 1 person. The outcome of that trial is not a declaration of the guilt or innocence or moral qualities of the other person. It is perfectly possible to reach the conclusion that 2 flawed, complicated human beings encountered each other, made unwise decisions and one of them ended up dead, without either of them being a terrible hateful villain.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
No. Zimmermann says he lost sight of Martin until Martin suddenly appeared and hit him in the face, knocking him to the ground
We know Zimmerman approached Martin with intent to confront. The only question there is whether Martin [i]also[/i approached to confront the armed man who had been following him and was soon to shoot him.

There is no evidence that Zimmermann intended to confront Martin. The dialog he had with the police dispatcher indicates that he was following Martin so that when the police showed up, he could tell them where Martin was.

Zimmermann had experience as a Neighborhood Watch. If you listen to the tapes of his previous dialogs with the police dispatchers, it is clear that he never wanted to get close to the person he was keeping track of. He just wanted to be able to tell the police where to find them.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Zimmermann intended to confront Martin. The dialog he had with the police dispatcher indicates that he was following Martin so that when the police showed up, he could tell them where Martin was.

Zimmermann had experience as a Neighborhood Watch. If you listen to the tapes of his previous dialogs with the police dispatchers, it is clear that he never wanted to get close to the person he was keeping track of. He just wanted to be able to tell the police where to find them.

It strains credulity that Zimmermann could be both experienced in the Neighborhood Watch and need to get out of his vehicle to check street signs to know where he was, which was his purported reason for leaving his vehicle.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Zimmermann intended to confront Martin. The dialog he had with the police dispatcher indicates that he was following Martin so that when the police showed up, he could tell them where Martin was.

Zimmermann had experience as a Neighborhood Watch. If you listen to the tapes of his previous dialogs with the police dispatchers, it is clear that he never wanted to get close to the person he was keeping track of. He just wanted to be able to tell the police where to find them.
It strains credulity that Zimmermann could be both experienced in the Neighborhood Watch and need to get out of his vehicle to check street signs to know where he was, which was his purported reason for leaving his vehicle.

You never look at maps in your home town? Have it all perfectly committed to memory? Recite the names of the side streets as you go past?

Not even taxi drivers have this level of skill in my experience, and it's their job.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Zimmermann intended to confront Martin.

(And the name on that first smiley is ironic).

quote:
The dialog he had with the police dispatcher indicates that he was following Martin so that when the police showed up, he could tell them where Martin was.

In other words he was quite literally stalking Martin first in a car, and then on foot armed with a gun.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Zimmermann intended to confront Martin.
(And the name on that first smiley is ironic).

quote:
The dialog he had with the police dispatcher indicates that he was following Martin so that when the police showed up, he could tell them where Martin was.
In other words he was quite literally stalking Martin first in a car, and then on foot armed with a gun.

None of which proves an intent to use the gun. Again, the situation in which Zimmerman ended up on the ground points, if anything, away from a scenario where he was ready to use the gun.

The mere existence of the 911 call is also problematic for you. If Zimmerman intended to stalk and take care of this himself, why the blazes is he calling the police? Why is he attempting to provide location information to someone else?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

There was a period of four minutes when Zimmermann did not know where Martin was. (If Martin was concerned about his safety, the house where he was staying was about two hundred yards away. He could have gone there to get away from Zimmermann.)

The next thing he knew about Martin was when Martin hit him in the face and knocked him down.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It strains credulity that Zimmermann could be both experienced in the Neighborhood Watch and need to get out of his vehicle to check street signs to know where he was, which was his purported reason for leaving his vehicle.
You never look at maps in your home town? Have it all perfectly committed to memory? Recite the names of the side streets as you go past?

Not even taxi drivers have this level of skill in my experience, and it's their job.

Given what is a very simple neighborhood layout I suspect a taxi driver (or Neighborhood Watchman) who restricted himself to that particular neighborhood would be able to pick up the street names after a year or so. Particularly the name of the street one block over from his house.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is NOT a contest between 2 people. It is a trial of 1 person. The outcome of that trial is not a declaration of the guilt or innocence or moral qualities of the other person. It is perfectly possible to reach the conclusion that 2 flawed, complicated human beings encountered each other, made unwise decisions and one of them ended up dead, without either of them being a terrible hateful villain.

Everything you say is true. However, the result of these truths is this: a young man was shot dead. The shooting was not accidental. The shooting could have been avoided. The shooter is not being held accountable for this non-accidental, avoidable shooting.

Like it or not, and justifiable or not, many people are now perceiving the shooter's acquittal as a kind of public declaration about the comparative worth of the victim's life.

Because the victim is African-American and male, it's also seen as a declaration-by-extension about the comparative worth, within our public arena, of the lives of African-American men.

Complicating the picture further, on the Diane Rehm Show this morning on NPR, someone from the NAACP made the claim (if I heard/remember it correctly) that, in SYG cases brought thus far, some 3% of shootings by whites have been deemed "unjustified." By contrast, she claimed, 66% of cases where the shooter was black were deemed "unjustified."

Maybe someone with superior google-fu can check on this or follow-up.

I know this isn't a SYG case. It is, however, see that way.

What I hope for is that this trial will help us see the folly of arming our citizens so liberally, and of passing laws that turn "self-defense" into a he-said-she-said circus.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It strains credulity that Zimmermann could be both experienced in the Neighborhood Watch and need to get out of his vehicle to check street signs to know where he was, which was his purported reason for leaving his vehicle.
You never look at maps in your home town? Have it all perfectly committed to memory? Recite the names of the side streets as you go past?

Not even taxi drivers have this level of skill in my experience, and it's their job.
Given what is a very simple neighborhood layout I suspect a taxi driver (or Neighborhood Watchman) who restricted himself to that particular neighborhood would be able to pick up the street names after a year or so. Particularly the name of the street one block over from his house.

But the phone call itself is quite good evidence that Zimmerman was a person more comfortable with visual cues than with formal addresses. Lots of people are. Lots of people think in terms of 'go past the clubhouse, around the bend, make a left' rather than street names and numbers. Once upon a time people relied on physical descriptions of the landscape, and addresses didn't exist. We invented addresses because they were more precise and more useful to strangers.

Also on the phone call he refers to a cut-through and clearly hesitates about the formal address in THAT particular context.

So no, I don't find it strains credulity. There's a fundamental difference between 'where am I' and 'what's the address of where I am'. It's perfectly plausible to me that he could be uncertain of the address while knowing the area physically.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I didn't follow the trial very closely, so I've got some questions about the details.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There was a period of four minutes when Zimmermann did not know where Martin was.

How was this established?

quote:
The next thing he knew about Martin was when Martin hit him in the face and knocked him down.

Zimmerman didn't see Martin for a second or two before Martin hit him? Did Martin appear out of nowhere? Suddenly come around a corner?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As I stated, not much is known. Much is interpreted or whether one chooses to believe Zimmerman.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I didn't follow the trial very closely, so I've got some questions about the details.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There was a period of four minutes when Zimmermann did not know where Martin was.
How was this established?

Four minutes elapsed between the time that Zimmermann told the dispatcher he had lost Martin, and the time that Martin on his cell phone told his girlfriend that he was about to get in a fight.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is NOT a contest between 2 people. It is a trial of 1 person. The outcome of that trial is not a declaration of the guilt or innocence or moral qualities of the other person. It is perfectly possible to reach the conclusion that 2 flawed, complicated human beings encountered each other, made unwise decisions and one of them ended up dead, without either of them being a terrible hateful villain.
Everything you say is true. However, the result of these truths is this: a young man was shot dead. The shooting was not accidental. The shooting could have been avoided. The shooter is not being held accountable for this non-accidental, avoidable shooting.

Like it or not, and justifiable or not, many people are now perceiving the shooter's acquittal as a kind of public declaration about the comparative worth of the victim's life.
.

I don't like it. I've never liked it. And it happens in almost every legal case known to mankind. It gives me the shits that people are illogical and irrational and treat criminal trials like sporting contests. And I'm not going to start liking it just because it seems inevitable that a large number of people are either stupid, lazy or perpetually biased.

I referred previously to 2 people I know of who killed someone and were acquitted. I don't know these people well - one I hadn't seen for some years, the other I only knew his mother. But I'm pretty sure they were both 'held to account'. For starters a trial is being held to account. Just as importantly, from what I know they're permanently changed by the experience and will always live with it. One of them was shocked enough by what happened to call the police, say he'd killed someone, and plead guilty to manslaughter only to have 2 judges reject the plea as wrong in law. The other spent over a year in jail before his trial, closer to 2 years I think, and lives in fear of being killed by the motorcycle gang whose leader he killed.

Just because Zimmerman isn't serving a jail sentence doesn't mean he's walking away without being held to account.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is obviously stupid, and not at all what the law says. There has to be an attack (either actual or obviously threatened) before you can defend against it.

No there doesn't. Only reasonable fear of assault.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Zimmermann had experience as a Neighborhood Watch.

And yet didn't know or chose to ignore the Neighborhood Watch rule to not carry a weapon. I'd say he's not exactly the model Neighborhood Watch poster child.

quote:
There was a period of four minutes when Zimmermann did not know where Martin was. (If Martin was concerned about his safety, the house where he was staying was about two hundred yards away. He could have gone there to get away from Zimmermann.)

The next thing he knew about Martin was when Martin hit him in the face and knocked him down.

You know this how?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the phone call itself is quite good evidence that Zimmerman was a person more comfortable with visual cues than with formal addresses. Lots of people are. Lots of people think in terms of 'go past the clubhouse, around the bend, make a left' rather than street names and numbers. Once upon a time people relied on physical descriptions of the landscape, and addresses didn't exist. We invented addresses because they were more precise and more useful to strangers.

Given that streets had names even in antiquity, that bit of history seems kind of revisionist.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Just because Zimmerman isn't serving a jail sentence doesn't mean he's walking away without being held to account.

I actually heard some Oakland community "police watchdog" leaders express the same thought-- they could cope with the verdict, as long as he was properly brought to trial. They basically blamed a shoddy prosecution strategy, and held out hope for better representation in the civil case that is looking to happen.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
There was a period of four minutes when Zimmermann did not know where Martin was. (If Martin was concerned about his safety, the house where he was staying was about two hundred yards away. He could have gone there to get away from Zimmermann.)

The next thing he knew about Martin was when Martin hit him in the face and knocked him down.
You know this how?

See this post.

In his closing argument, one of the defense attorneys pointed out that Martin could easily have reached a place of safety in that time. To emphasize how long four minutes is, he asked the jury to sit quietly for four minutes; he would tell them when the time was up.

This looked like a very effective ploy.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But ploy, it is.
It was fine for Zimmerman to actively pursue, but not for Martin to stand his ground?
We put much of our own spin on the events. As did the legal teams on both sides.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the phone call itself is quite good evidence that Zimmerman was a person more comfortable with visual cues than with formal addresses. Lots of people are. Lots of people think in terms of 'go past the clubhouse, around the bend, make a left' rather than street names and numbers. Once upon a time people relied on physical descriptions of the landscape, and addresses didn't exist. We invented addresses because they were more precise and more useful to strangers.
Given that streets had names even in antiquity, that bit of history seems kind of revisionist.

My address has a lot more in it than the name of my street. Which is a small street not a major one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

xposts. This is addressed to Moo.

So we know it based on the fact that Zimmerman (a) didn't speak to the dispatcher in that time, and (b) says he didn't see Trayvon. And you take his word for it.

What you haven't established or said is that Trayvon was less than 4 minutes from home at the time he was spotted.

Further, if he thought the stalker had given up and gone away, why are you saying he should have gone home? He didn't have a right to be out on the street? That's sure what it sounds like you're saying.

[ 15. July 2013, 18:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
xposts. This is addressed to Moo.

So we know it based on the fact that Zimmerman (a) didn't speak to the dispatcher in that time, and (b) says he didn't see Trayvon. And you take his word for it.

I'm not sure whether he spoke to the dispatcher during that four minutes or not.

quote:
What you haven't established or said is that Trayvon was less than 4 minutes from home at the time he was spotted.

He was two hundred yards from home. He could easily make that in four minutes.

quote:
Further, if he thought the stalker had given up and gone away, why are you saying he should have gone home? He didn't have a right to be out on the street? That's sure what it sounds like you're saying.

Of course he had a right to be on the street. On the other hand, what is there to do on a residential street in the rain at night?

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Of course he had a right to be on the street. On the other hand, what is there to do on a residential street in the rain at night

Why does that matter?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Of course he had a right to be on the street. On the other hand, what is there to do on a residential street in the rain at night
Why does that matter?

What he did do was punch Zimmermann in the face knocking him down, straddle him and pound his head against the concrete.

He did not have the right to do that.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No. This is what Zimmerman says happened.
It might be true, it might not. We do not know.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But ploy, it is.
It was fine for Zimmerman to actively pursue, but not for Martin to stand his ground?
We put much of our own spin on the events. As did the legal teams on both sides.

This relates to the kind of logic fail I refer to. It's not a contest of that nature. If Martin survived and was put on trial, I would think it was at least possible for him to be acquitted on self defence grounds.

Because self defence is about perception of threats, not merely actual threats. People are not mind readers. People make assumptions about the intentions of others. Zimmerman clearly made erroneous assumptions about the intentions of Martin, but it's just as plausible that Martin made erroneous assumptions about the intentions of Zimmerman and perceived him as more of a threat than Zimmerman had in mind.

Neither of them is necessarily guilty of a crime other than foolishness. Had there not been a gun around, they might have both survived and been required to answer for their actions. And to me it's perfectly plausible they would both be legally okay.

(as an aside, the rate at which black people fail to establish SYG defences is a troubling systemic issue. Cherry picking a case of a woman who went to get a gun is not a demonstration of a systemic issue, though. HER case is a demonstration of the wrongs of mandatory sentencing, not of the wrongs of SYG).

The world is full of wrong assumptions about other people's actions and motivations, and misunderstandings that lead to trouble. It's precisely because of this that I despair about the availability of weapons, enabling that trouble to become fatal. Most of my misunderstandings can't get beyond a bit of angry shouting, and once or twice in my life there might have been a few pathetic slap-punches exchanged before everyone calmed down and got some perspective.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. This is what Zimmerman says happened.
It might be true, it might not. We do not know.

Here is the evidence supporting Zimmermann's story.

Zimmermann's face had obviously suffered a blow
The back of Zimmermann's head had lacerations suggesting that it had been hit hard several times
The back of Zimmermann's jacket and trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
The knees of Martin's trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
Before the fatal gunshot, the only injury Martin received was to one of his hands. Presumably this resulted from his blows to Zimmermann
A man whose house was nearby came to see what was going on. He saw a man in a red jacket (Zimmermann) flat on his back being repeated struck by a man in black (Martin). The witness had seen a fighting technique on television known as Mixed Martial Arts. He said that the man on top was using a 'ground and pound' technique.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Thanks for answering my question, Moo. I did have another -- how is it that Zimmerman didn't see Martin before Martin punched him in the face? I'm trying to picture how that worked. Did he not see Martin at all, with the punch apparently coming out of nowhere?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I assume Zimmermann was looking in another direction. Martin may have sneaked up on him. Obviously Zimmermann must have seen him immediately before the blow was struck, but it may only have been a split second before.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

It is possible that if Zimmermann had not fired his gun, he would have been killed or suffered permanent brain damage. Repeated blows to the back of the head are dangerous, and there is no evidence that Martin would have known when to stop.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. This is what Zimmerman says happened.
It might be true, it might not. We do not know.
Here is the evidence supporting Zimmermann's story.

Zimmermann's face had obviously suffered a blow
The back of Zimmermann's head had lacerations suggesting that it had been hit hard several times

Expert testimony also claimed this could have been from one punch and fall to the ground.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The knees of Martin's trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground

Indicative, not proof.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Before the fatal gunshot, the only injury Martin received was to one of his hands. Presumably this resulted from his blows to Zimmermann

Presumably.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
A man whose house was nearby came to see what was going on. He saw a man in a red jacket (Zimmermann) flat on his back being repeated struck by a man in black (Martin). The witness had seen a fighting technique on television known as Mixed Martial Arts. He said that the man on top was using a 'ground and pound' technique.

Moo

First see my comments regarding eyewitnesses. Feel free to choose you examples here.
Second, IIRC, the eyewitness was interviewed after a substantial time delay. Further muddying the recall of what might have been observed.

Moo, please do not take my comments as hostile, I am merely trying to point out that there are far fewer facts established than one may believe.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is possible that if Zimmermann had not fired his gun, he would have been killed or suffered permanent brain damage. Repeated blows to the back of the head are dangerous, and there is no evidence that Martin would have known when to stop.

Moo

However, I know that this wouldn't NECESSARILY mean Martin was guilty of a crime, either, if it was believed he acted out of self-defence.

I know this because 'knowing when to stop' was a key issue in the case of my acquaintance whose manslaughter plea was rejected, on grounds of self defence.

He strangled someone to death. Essentially he applied some kind of choke hold and held on for too long. The application of the choke hold was self defence, and it did not cease to be self defence because he misjudged how long he needed to hold on to ensure the threat was over.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Second, IIRC, the eyewitness was interviewed after a substantial time delay. Further muddying the recall of what might have been observed.

As soon as this witness saw what was going on, he went home and phoned 911. I don't know how long it took to get a formal statement from him, but I believe there was a lot of information in his 911 call.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. This is what Zimmerman says happened.
It might be true, it might not. We do not know.
Here is the evidence supporting Zimmermann's story.

Zimmermann's face had obviously suffered a blow
The back of Zimmermann's head had lacerations suggesting that it had been hit hard several times
Expert testimony also claimed this could have been from one punch and fall to the ground.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The knees of Martin's trousers were wet from contact with the wet ground
Indicative, not proof.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Before the fatal gunshot, the only injury Martin received was to one of his hands. Presumably this resulted from his blows to Zimmermann
Presumably.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
A man whose house was nearby came to see what was going on. He saw a man in a red jacket (Zimmermann) flat on his back being repeated struck by a man in black (Martin). The witness had seen a fighting technique on television known as Mixed Martial Arts. He said that the man on top was using a 'ground and pound' technique.

Moo
First see my comments regarding eyewitnesses. Feel free to choose you examples here.
Second, IIRC, the eyewitness was interviewed after a substantial time delay. Further muddying the recall of what might have been observed.

Moo, please do not take my comments as hostile, I am merely trying to point out that there are far fewer facts established than one may believe.

I pretty much agree with your analysis. Which is where burden of proof comes in. There are plenty of things that are not firmly established, but the law doesn't require Zimmerman to prove facts. In my opinion there are enough pieces of evidence consistent with Zimmerman's account to mean that it can't be disproved or shown to be fundamentally implausible.

As for interviewing witnesses, I had the impression that the police interviewed at least some of them right away. Because my impression was this was one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged to begin with. I certainly imagine I heard bits of pieces about what neighbours had witnessed within the first couple of days of this becoming a story.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

The "discussion" of the Zimmerman case across America is truly frightening.

Unfortunately, the discussion case has nothing to do with the actual Trayvon and Zimmerman of history, or their court case, or Florida law, or any aspect of "the truth".

The Zimmerman case is about one half of American society demonizing the other half. The "Trayvon half" (those choosing to identify themselves with Martin, egged on by charlatan leaders who should know better) genuinely believes that the "Zimmerman half" (those armed, locked-and-loaded, law-abiding citizens of Caucasian ethnicity) is "out to get them", and all their problems would disappear if there was some way of convicting and locking up the "Zimmerman half".

Much energy has been spent by the mainstream media (and the other professional activists) to make this case a grand metaphor (and political battlefield) for the "Trayvon half" of society to decisively defeat the "Zimmerman half" for all time. (They even invented the term "white Hispanic" to make the metaphor more applicable.)

However, they picked a laughably horrible case to use as their metaphor. It's a blatantly open-shut case of self-defense. Nevertheless, the American left cannot let it go. They are so desperate to keep the metaphor chugging along that they are willing to distort, spin, and obscure any detail of the case to keep "the Zimmerman half" of society from "defeating them".

(It's very telling that the leaders of the Trayvon half, supposed moral heirs to Martin Luther King Jr, are calling for civil violence in retaliation. I suspect they see the need to cash-in on the outrage now before the protesters accidentally read a newspaper and discover what mixed martial arts the "unarmed Trayvon" was performing on Zimmerman.)

Bottom line, there is no point in arguing the actual case with a Trayvon supporter. If the Trayvon of history were banging the heads of Trayvon supporters in the pavement, and they had a gun in their hands, 99.9% of Trayvon supporters would have shot him in the chest too.

The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half. I wonder, if the "armed, locked-and-loaded citizens of Caucasian ethnicity" are such a threat, why is it so hard to find a genuine case of racial violence? Why must these cases be "invented" by the media?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

If you want to get an idea of Martin's physique, go to this site and scroll down until you come to a picture of a barechested man.

This is not what the average schoolchild looks like.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And this is irrelevant.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is irrelevant.

Why?

The media have portrayed Martin as a child, and it is important to point out that physically he wasn't.

If he had been physically a child, he could not have grounded and pounded Zimmermann.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is irrelevant.

Well, I don't Think physical size is irrelevant. It goes to the legitimacy of Zimmerman perceiving a threat. Although I suppose even a quite small person can get a hold of you.

I'm not sure that membership of fighting clubs is irrelevant either... Not in the sense that it proves something, more that it's at least consistent with Zimmerman's account. If Martin was a small guy with a known history of pacifism and avoiding confrontation it would make zimmerman harder to believe.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half.

400 years of history.

The real question is why does the Zimmerman half harbor such hate against the Trayvon half. And why are you so quick to defend paranoid white racists?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What people see with a fight is who had the upper-hand, not who was the aggressor. This is wrong. The aggressor is the person who starts a confrontation. In this case, who was the aggressor is unknown and depends on interpretation regardless.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The real question is why does the Zimmerman half harbor such hate against the Trayvon half.

Speaking of this particular case, there are many black residents of Sanford, Florida, who would tell you that George Zimmermann does not harbor hate against blacks. He has fought against whites for black rights.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The real question is why does the Zimmerman half harbor such hate against the Trayvon half.
Speaking of this particular case, there are many black residents of Sanford, Florida, who would tell you that George Zimmermann does not harbor hate against blacks. He has fought against whites for black rights.

I wasn't referring to George Zimmerman specifically, I was referring to the bifurcation of American society made by BWSmith.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In this case, who was the aggressor is unknown and depends on interpretation regardless.

There is no evidence that Zimmermann hit Martin even once. There are no signs of injury on Martin's body or Zimmermann's hands.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Aggressor does not require physical attack. Especially not in Florida.
Merely the perception of imminent danger.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aggressor does not require physical attack. Especially not in Florida.
Merely the perception of imminent danger.

I don't understand at all.

Moo

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Maybe someone with superior google-fu can check on this or follow-up.

Here is a chart and some fairly sensible analysis from PBS.

There are racial disparities which are worth investigating, and could be caused by a systematic bias against black defendants.

Or it could just tell you about the socioeconomic and racial distributions in those locations. Muggers and other street criminals are poor people. In a city where most of the poor people are black, and most of the white people are rich, pretty much every example of black vs white street crime is going to be a black person attacking a white person. If the victim shoots back, that's going to be a whole load of justifiable white-on-black shootings. Poor person-on-poor person (which in this fake example is mostly black on black) violence is far more likely to be street fights, gang violence and the like with two willing participants, so nobody able to claim self-defense.

In truth, there's probably both effects present, and much more work is needed to sort out how much of each one. White juries do have a noted tendency to treat black kids harsher than white ones - when they look at a white kid, they think of the misdeeds they got up to in their youth and can sympathize, whereas the black kid is a violent other.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Zimmermann hit Martin even once. There are no signs of injury on Martin's body or Zimmermann's hands.

I assume you mean ". . . aside from a gunshot wound."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What people see with a fight is who had the upper-hand, not who was the aggressor. This is wrong. The aggressor is the person who starts a confrontation. In this case, who was the aggressor is unknown and depends on interpretation regardless.

Which is pretty much why you have an acquittal.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aggressor does not require physical attack. Especially not in Florida.
Merely the perception of imminent danger.

I don't understand at all.

If Zimmerman was aggressively closing in on Martin, perhaps yelling threats, that's sufficient to label Zimmerman as the aggressor, and permit Martin to use necessary force to defend himself. It doesn't need Zimmerman to swing the first punch.

On the other hand, if Zimmerman kept his distance, Martin does not have reasonable grounds for fearing imminent assault.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aggressor does not require physical attack. Especially not in Florida.
Merely the perception of imminent danger.

I don't understand at all.

Moo

If a person feels they are in danger, they may respond. This "sense of danger" need not be a physical attack, but merely the perception that one is imminent.
From Wikipedia

quote:
The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed.

In this case, it is as reasonable to say Martin felt threatened and defended himself against that threat as it is to say Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin in self-defense.
Who had more physical damage prior to the gunshot is not relevant. Who initiated the confrontation is.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
(It's very telling that the leaders of the Trayvon half, supposed moral heirs to Martin Luther King Jr, are calling for civil violence in retaliation. I suspect they see the need to cash-in on the outrage now before the protesters accidentally read a newspaper and discover what mixed martial arts the "unarmed Trayvon" was performing on Zimmerman.)

Which leaders on the left have called for civil violence?

quote:
The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half. I wonder, if the "armed, locked-and-loaded citizens of Caucasian ethnicity" are such a threat, why is it so hard to find a genuine case of racial violence? Why must these cases be "invented" by the media?

This is complete and utter horse shit.

James Byrd

Partial list of unarmed men shot and killed by police

I double dog dare you to read what Ta-Nehisi Coates says about the verdict and see if you can refute anything he says.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What people see with a fight is who had the upper-hand, not who was the aggressor. This is wrong. The aggressor is the person who starts a confrontation. In this case, who was the aggressor is unknown and depends on interpretation regardless.
Which is pretty much why you have an acquittal.

Exactly.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I accept all of the evidence presented here.

Moo's summation is perfectly credible.

It changes nothing.

Justice has not been done here in the slightest. It can't be. No adversarial toss of the coin is just. This trial is just one more in a continuous series of false dichotomies.

George Cain slew his brother Abel Trayvon.

What a tragedy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Read RuthW's link as to why, despite the possible correct verdict by the Zimmerman jury, this is far from justice. More people will needlessly die, people will get away with murder as a direct result of ludicrous, unevenly applied laws.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Justice has not been done here in the slightest. It can't be. No adversarial toss of the coin is just. This trial is just one more in a continuous series of false dichotomies.

Damn Skippy.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What people see with a fight is who had the upper-hand, not who was the aggressor. This is wrong. The aggressor is the person who starts a confrontation. In this case, who was the aggressor is unknown and depends on interpretation regardless.
Which is pretty much why you have an acquittal.
Exactly.

Fair enough to me

As to "liberal incitement to riot" hinted at above, at least around here-- and bear in mind "around here" includes Oakland-- the leaders of the move to convict Zimmerman have uniformly expressed relief and pride that the demonstrations thus far have been peaceful and focused on discourse-- as one put it, "We see no point in tearing up our own neighborhoods because we are angry at someone else."

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

Much energy has been spent by the mainstream media (and the other professional activists) to make this case a grand metaphor (and political battlefield) for the "Trayvon half" of society to decisively defeat the "Zimmerman half" for all time. (They even invented the term "white Hispanic" to make the metaphor more applicable.)

Minor point, but in reality, the U.S. Census folks have been collecting data about Hispanic (white) and Hispanic (black) and Hispanic (other) for at least the last three go-rounds. OTOH, I have no idea how George Zimmerman self-identifies his ethnicity.

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
. . . why is it so hard to find a genuine case of racial violence? Why must these cases be "invented" by the media?

It's not hard. There's been several cases of racially-motivated violence in my own state within the last two years, at least two of them in the city ward I represent. There were no fatalities, however.

In the two cases in my ward, we know the racial motivations because the perps thoughtfully scrawled racist graffiti at the scene.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In this case, it is as reasonable to say Martin felt threatened and defended himself against that threat as it is to say Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin in self-defense.

Given the fact that Martin had plenty of time to get home, I think he chose the confrontation. He told his girlfriend he was planning to fight.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

RuthW's link is very good, although I still think too much fuss is made over stand your ground. Some of what is highlighted in that article, and elsewhere, is basic self defence law that applies in countries which have never passed a stand your ground law.

But much of it I agree with. Frankly I think a lot more time should be spent on looking at the death itself, not the court case. Assumptions about black youths are a big issue. Gun ownership in the general American population is a big issue. They're still big issues regardless of the verdict in this particular case.

A young black homeless guy thanked me the other day for responding to him and having a conversation instead of assuming a young black guy was trouble. And this was before I agreed to buy him lunch.

I don't talk to every homeless person who tries to talk to me. And I've only bought 2 of them lunch. But it says something to me that he thought his race would be a key issue.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half.

400 years of history.

Interesting. Gotcha.

I would note that in checking my American genealogy (ignoring the German and Cherokee), I strongly suspect that I have a supermajority of Angle, Saxon, Jute (and other misc. Gaelic Briton) blood relative to a small minority of Norman blood.

As such, with the 1,000-year anniversary of the Battle of Hastings fast approaching, do you believe that I am morally obliged to "hate" the members of the Norman-descended British royal family, whose invasion into my homeland likely denied me any opportunity to rule as a lord in England (due to their "imperialistic war crimes" under William the Conqueror)?

If not, then could it be said that "historical hate" of one culture against another comes with an "expiration date" (or any sort of statute of limitations)?

The Civil Rights Act had been in place 10 years before I was even born, so I have no concept of institutionalized segregation, let alone slavery. So while "400 years" certainly had meaning to the Baby Boomers, it rings more and more hollow now that we are two generations removed from that era, (particularly when set in comparison to "real oppression" like that suffered daily by the North Koreans, for example...)

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The real question is why does the Zimmerman half harbor such hate against the Trayvon half. And why are you so quick to defend paranoid white racists?

The left has one weapon and they use it well: the "Big Lie" of hypocrisy.

The "Zimmerman half" is not paranoid. They have nothing against the color of anyone's skin. The "Trayvon half" are the ones who preserve hate, spouting epithets (like "paranoid white racists"), keeping the lawsuits rolling, and never letting the racial divide cool off. They must regularly recite to themselves how much "the man" hates them, or else they are in danger of forgetting it and accidentally letting bygones be bygones...

Now the above is a statement about GENETICS only, and is not meant to imply the lack of a "culture war" of behavior and choices (which is the real heart of the racial divide).

The "Zimmerman half" is VERY leery of the culturally-conditioned actions and behaviors of the "Trayvon half" precisely because the Trayvon half chooses people like Trayvon Martin to be their representative. The "Zimmerman half" looks at Trayvon Martin and sees a list of bad decisions, bad actions, serious consequences, and eventually death. Conversely, they look at George Zimmerman and see a man taking responsibility to defend his family and neighborhood under the law. They scratch their heads to understand why anyone would want to emulate Trayvon and advocate the killing of George?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I see the problem, BWSmith. We're not on the same planet. You're on one where there is no racism, and all the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and other racist set-ups have been entirely ameliorated. Unfortunately I'm on this other one, where they have not.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm in the Zimmerman-Martin whole.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Which leaders on the left have called for civil violence?

Louis Farrakhan: “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”

Marion Barry: "Good news is Zimmerman will never be in peace."

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half. I wonder, if the "armed, locked-and-loaded citizens of Caucasian ethnicity" are such a threat, why is it so hard to find a genuine case of racial violence? Why must these cases be "invented" by the media?
James Byrd

The James Byrd case involved 2-3 white supremacists murdering a black man in 1998. They were tried, convicted, and got the death penalty.

We are on the same side. 99% of observers agree that these men were murderers and deserved what they got (and deserve to rot in hell).

So why should that particular murder be deemed to reflect on society more than any other serial killer and his victims? How did "racist Texas" allow them to be convicted? What resemblance does this bear to the Zimmerman case (apart from those looking to make race the issue)?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The Civil Rights Act had been in place 10 years before I was even born, so I have no concept of institutionalized segregation, let alone slavery.

You might want to reconsider your assessment of when slavery actually ended.

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
So while "400 years" certainly had meaning to the Baby Boomers, it rings more and more hollow now that we are two generations removed from that era, . . .

That seems a glib way of minimizing or dismissing something which exists within living memory.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see the problem, BWSmith. We're not on the same planet. You're on one where there is no racism, and all the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and other racist set-ups have been entirely ameliorated. Unfortunately I'm on this other one, where they have not.

Your skills of persuasion are a thing of legend.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The Civil Rights Act had been in place 10 years before I was even born, so I have no concept of institutionalized segregation, let alone slavery. So while "400 years" certainly had meaning to the Baby Boomers, it rings more and more hollow now that we are two generations removed from that era ...

Two whole generations! Wow. Has it been that long? Seems like it was only yesterday that white people in state legislatures such as Pennsylvania's were doing their level best to prevent poor people, students and people of color from voting. Oh wait -- that's still going on.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
The real question (which we must address as Christians) is why the Trayvon half of society harbors such hate against the Zimmerman half. I wonder, if the "armed, locked-and-loaded citizens of Caucasian ethnicity" are such a threat, why is it so hard to find a genuine case of racial violence? Why must these cases be "invented" by the media?
James Byrd
The James Byrd case involved 2-3 white supremacists murdering a black man in 1998. They were tried, convicted, and got the death penalty.

We are on the same side. 99% of observers agree that these men were murderers and deserved what they got (and deserve to rot in hell).

I'm not sure how that tracks, given your contention that the Byrd case (and all others like it) are media inventions.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Which leaders on the left have called for civil violence?
Louis Farrakhan: “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”

Farrakhan is a hate-filled lunatic who'd be dangerous if anyone outside the Nation of Islam thought he had any credibility.

quote:
Marion Barry: "Good news is Zimmerman will never be in peace."

This isn't a call for violence, this is a prediction that makes a lot of sense, assuming that Zimmerman isn't a psychopath. Zimmerman may someday find peace, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see the problem, BWSmith. We're not on the same planet. You're on one where there is no racism, and all the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and other racist set-ups have been entirely ameliorated. Unfortunately I'm on this other one, where they have not.
Your skills of persuasion are a thing of legend.

You think

I was trying [Killing me]

to pursuade [Killing me]

YOU

of ANYTHING? [Killing me]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Meanwhile, one juror already has a book deal. The LA Times article raises the question of whether this was in the works before the verdict was in.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Meanwhile, one juror already has a book deal. The LA Times article raises the question of whether this was in the works before the verdict was in.

Meh. WE'VE already got 5 pages and we weren't even involved in the trial.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Meanwhile, one juror already has a book deal. The LA Times article raises the question of whether this was in the works before the verdict was in.

Here is how the LA Times raises the question:

quote:
Anyone who’s ever tried to reach a literary agent over the weekend will question the timing of said announcement, which came less than 36 hours after the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of all counts. Is it possible that Juror B37, or her husband, was in contact with the agency before the six-woman jury even began to deliberate? And might a desire to transform her experience as a juror into a marketable story have influenced B37’s view of the case?

The first sentence is laugh out loud naive. This agent specializes in representing people who write first person accounts of newsworthy trials. There is a lot of money to be made off of this book. Maybe agents don't return calls from journalists on Saturday night, but a juror from this trial? You are going to call back. With nothing else to base his accusations on other than the fact that his own literary agent doesn't call him back on Saturday night, the last two sentences start to seem pretty reckless.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Meanwhile, one juror already has a book deal. The LA Times article raises the question of whether this was in the works before the verdict was in.

This is one aspect of the US legal system that I find hard to grasp. In the UK, jury deliberations are legally privileged. Jurors are not allowed to discuss them after the fact, at all - let alone write books about it. There seems to me to be something particularly unpleasant about a juror cashing in on such a high-profile trial like this.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This agent specializes in representing people who write first person accounts of newsworthy trials. There is a lot of money to be made off of this book. Maybe agents don't return calls from journalists on Saturday night, but a juror from this trial? You are going to call back.

Maybe you know something I don't, but it still seems very fast to me. The juror would have had to find people who handle this kind of thing, choose from among them, and negotiate a contract -- all in less than 48 hours.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
and the juror’s husband

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Which leaders on the left have called for civil violence?
Louis Farrakhan: “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”

Marion Barry: "Good news is Zimmerman will never be in peace."

The best you could do was pull up the far-left bogeymen of the 90s? I haven't heard anything about them for a decade.

It'd be like a left-winger bringing up David Duke or Phyllis Schlafly in an attack on the right.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This agent specializes in representing people who write first person accounts of newsworthy trials. There is a lot of money to be made off of this book. Maybe agents don't return calls from journalists on Saturday night, but a juror from this trial? You are going to call back.
Maybe you know something I don't, but it still seems very fast to me. The juror would have had to find people who handle this kind of thing, choose from among them, and negotiate a contract -- all in less than 48 hours.

Google doesn't exist in Florida?

It wasn't a full on book deal, she hired an agent to get her a book deal. The agent in question has worked with similar clients in the past, so it would be a natural person to call, and they probably have an engagement letter for this kind of thing. Maybe the agent sent out feelers after the verdict came out. Maybe the husband was working behind the scenes before the verdict came out. I just think that the LA Times author's take, which was that the quick contract might point to the fix being in, is a huge stretch.

[ 16. July 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Dave W.: Because you feel so much safer in Brazil, with it's vastly lower murder rate and police of unimpeachable conduct?
Oh, Brazil is far from perfect. And I've looked into the barrel of a gun here much more often than I would care for.

Really? What's just the right frequency, would you say?

quote:
But if someone would shoot me here, I'd have a much bigger chance that the one with the gun would be considered the guilty party, for whatever comfort that might bring.

As a reason for being glad you don't live in the US, that's just ... idiosyncratic? No, that's not the word. Farcical? Absurd?

The homicide rate in Brazil is about 5 times higher, but in the event of your murder you'd somehow die happier (or at least less unhappy) in the knowledge that people would be less likely to think your murderer had shot you in self defense?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Meanwhile, one juror already has a book deal. The LA Times article raises the question of whether this was in the works before the verdict was in.

Wow. Stand your ground, carrying a gun in a public place for use against people, a juror getting a books deal. -- It is indeed a different planet. None of it legal in Canada (about the last one: jurors may never reveal what they discussed and did).

What's the status of jury confidentiality elsewhere. Don't mean to go too far off topic, but doesn't the possibility of a book deal mean there's a possibility of some form of bias, e.g., a juror might wish to enhance the deliberations to make a more exciting book? Draw them out, foment conflict and drama in the jury room to make a better story?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh phew. Just checked. Murder rate in Australia is almost 5 times LESS than the USA so I can safely stay on my moral high horse.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Q--

Probably not, due to race. Various people have posted links to relevant stats and info throughout the thread. You might want to check that out.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A juror writing a book????? Here, jurors must keep their discussions secret, and not tell even the judge.

And jurors are not representative of the community, but rather representatives of the community. In other words, because we as a community cannot all meet to hear and decide cases, jurors are selected to represent us all and carry out that function. Think back to Edmund Burke on the role of an MP, and you'll get the idea.

[ 16. July 2013, 09:56: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

The jury's decision to acquit was, IMO, correct, given the paucity of the evidence and the fact that of the two eye witnesses to the incident, one was dead and the other the defendant. The 'Stand your Ground Law', OTOH...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury's decision to acquit was, IMO, correct, given the paucity of the evidence and the fact that of the two eye witnesses to the incident, one was dead and the other the defendant. The 'Stand your Ground Law', OTOH...

It's pretty indubitable that Zimmerman was defending himself in a fight he picked. You might want to consider lowering your standards for "beyond reasonable doubt."

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Depends on what you mean by a fight he picked. We don't actually know who started it. Zimmerman claims he got out of the car to check on Martin's whereabouts, & Martin jumped him. Martin's girl friend's testimony suggests Martin was about to confront Zimmerman.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Evidence?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Q--

Probably not, due to race. Various people have posted links to relevant stats and info throughout the thread. You might want to check that out.

I'm very sorry, I was using a touch of the ironicals, indicating that Martin would have been convicted, if he shot Z. Not ironical enough.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?

Only if there were evidence that he had good reason to believe that he was at risk of suffering serious injury or death.

Remember, Martin was on top of Zimmermann pounding his head against the pavement. You can kill someone that way.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black
The jury's decision to acquit was, IMO, correct, given the paucity of the evidence and the fact that of the two eye witnesses to the incident, one was dead and the other the defendant. The 'Stand your Ground Law', OTOH...

There was another eyewitness to part of it--the man who came out of his house and saw a man in a black shirt astride a man in a red jacket and pounding his head against the pavement. He did not see what led up to this.

AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.

Moo

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dave W.: Really? What's just the right frequency, would you say?

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is something you should give a sarcastic answer to. Being mugged and having a gun pointed at your head by a drug-crazed guy is a terrible, terrible thing. I hope it will never happen to you.

quote:
Dave W.: The homicide rate in Brazil is about 5 times higher, but in the event of your murder you'd somehow die happier (or at least less unhappy) in the knowledge that people would be less likely to think your murderer had shot you in self defense?

Strangely, yes. It isn't about the feelings I'll have when I die, it is about what I feel now. The idea that someone could just kill me with a gun while I would be walking to a store unarmed to buy some sweets and claim self defence afterwards, is a terrible affront to my sense of justice. Maybe it's irrational, but I never claimed my feelings were rational.

Anyway, I live in Brazil but I was born in the Netherlands. On this thread it was this country I was making a comparison with (explicitly so). Do you wish to compare murder rates between the US and the Netherlands?

There is another thing about muggings that I find interesting related to this case. It is the fact that it's very difficult to control how you'll react when you get mugged. Everyone knows that the best thing is to stay calm and hand over your stuff when this happens, but when the moment comes and someone does point a gun at your head, gut insticts kick in, and some people will react anyway, often resulting in their death.

I am lucky enough that my gut instincts are exactly to stay calm, and that is why I'm able to tell this story here. But when confronted with an intense situation like this, some people react in ways they can't control very well.

My thougts are: isn't it possible that something similar goes on when someone follows you in a car? Like I've said before, this can also be a quite intense moment. My own reaction when this happened to me was terror, I'm not ashamed to admit that. But what if someone else has agression as their first gut reaction?

I have worked with teenagers in the Netherlands that have grave social and behavioural problems. Most of them have been in touch with the juridical mill already. Imagine that one of them would be followed by a stranger in a car like this. I don't have to guess very hard to know what the gut reaction of most of them will be: "I'm going to punch this guy in the face."

That isn't right, and it isn't justifiable. But I'd also hope that it wouldn't lead to one of these teenagers' death. Society should have better ways of dealing with people with agression problems.

Otherwise, if someone had a grudge against one of these teenagers (for example because of his skin colour), he could just follow the scheme mousethief described before on this thread:

Follow the teenager in your car.
Wait for him to become agressive.
Shoot.

That can't be right. Following someone in your car while armed, when you're not a trained police officer, should never be OK.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?
Only if there were evidence that he had good reason to believe that he was at risk of suffering serious injury or death.

Remember, Martin was on top of Zimmermann pounding his head against the pavement. You can kill someone that way.

So he says and it does nicely fit the available evidence. It would have been good to hear Martin's account.

If Martin was armed, maybe he wouldn't have needed to take the risk of disabling an armed stalker by tackiliing him physically. He could have shot Zimmerman and claimed SYG.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black
The jury's decision to acquit was, IMO, correct, given the paucity of the evidence and the fact that of the two eye witnesses to the incident, one was dead and the other the defendant. The 'Stand your Ground Law', OTOH...
There was another eyewitness to part of it--the man who came out of his house and saw a man in a black shirt astride a man in a red jacket and pounding his head against the pavement. He did not see what led up to this.

AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
If Martin was armed, maybe he wouldn't have needed to take the risk of disabling an armed stalker by tackiliing him physically. He could have shot Zimmerman and claimed SYG.

SYG does not cover situations when someone is simply being followed. The followee has to have good reason to believe that harm is intended.

Moo

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.

The article referenced by Ruth quotes the instructions from the judge, which featured SYG prominently.

--Tom Clune

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, the situation with Martin armed goes like this: Martin is being followed, accosts Z, a fight starts, Z is losing, pulls his gun in self-defence, Martin pulls his, also in self-defence. He is just quicker, Wyatt Earp rules.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.

This is incorrect. It was cited in the judge's instructions to the jury [PDF]. From page 12:

quote:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

A few questions.

It may be legal to have shot a 16 year old who was on his way home from buying candy, but in what world is it fair? The idea that the jury system is great and the verdict was correct seems to have nothing at all to do with fairness.

Second, in what scenario does this 16 year old make it home safely?" Without a confrontation?

Third, do people realize that this was a child who was shot? He was 16. That equates with grade 10 in Canada, probably the same there, i.e., just finished grade 9. He was a child.

Fourth, was he old enough to buy a gun? An inflammatory comment I heard yesterday was whether there needs to be a program to arm young black people, school children etc.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Second, in what scenario does this 16 year old make it home safely?" Without a confrontation?

The one where he doesn't decide to confront the person following him and just keeps walking, presumably.

ETA: and he was 17, not 16. And probably bigger and stronger than either you or me.

[ 16. July 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
ETA: and he was 17, not 16.

Well that makes it okay then. Glad to hear his life wasn't cut tragically short or anything.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Another question from a Canadian:

How are Stand your ground laws different from the usual self-defense argument? My understanding is that with traditional self-defense argument is that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened which justifies taking action.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
A few questions.

It may be legal to have shot a 16 year old who was on his way home from buying candy, but in what world is it fair?
quote:

Martin wasn't shot while he was walking home. He was shot while he was sitting on a man's chest pounding his head against concrete.

Second, in what scenario does this 16 year old make it home safely?"

The one where he keeps on walking until he enters his father's house. The scenario where he doesn't tell his girl friend on the phone that a "crazy ass cracker," is following him and he's going to walk back and see what's up. The one where he doesn't circle around behind Zimmerman and jump out and punch him.

quote:
Third, do people realize that this was a child who was shot? He was 16. That equates with grade 10 in Canada, probably the same there, i.e., just finished grade 9.

He was 17. He was six feet tall, much taller than Zimmerman, and in prime physical shape. When someone much bigger than you is beating you should you be required to ask his age? He was old enough to have been in trouble for possession of marijuana and punching a bus driver, these are not actions usually associated with children.

[/QB]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Another question from a Canadian:

How are Stand your ground laws different from the usual self-defense argument? My understanding is that with traditional self-defense argument is that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened which justifies taking action.

"Traditional self-defense" generally places an obligation on the victim of an attack to retreat to safety if he can, and only permits him to use force in self-defense if there is no other reasonable alternative.

"Stand your ground" type laws remove the obligation to retreat - if someone is attacked in a place where he is legally entitled to be, he doesn't have to consider running away as one of his options.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

He was 17. He was six feet tall, much taller than Zimmerman, and in prime physical shape.

Well, all the photos don't show him to be unusually muscular for someone of that age/height. Evidently he was also not so intimidating that Zimmerman balked at following him.

quote:

When someone much bigger than you is beating you should you be required to ask his age? He was old enough to have been in trouble for possession of marijuana and punching a bus driver, these are not actions usually associated with children.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

These are still not capital crimes though - at best it provides some circumstantial evidence that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
ETA: and he was 17, not 16.
Well that makes it okay then. Glad to hear his life wasn't cut tragically short or anything.

Accuracy in reporting is a good thing in its own right.

Especially when the inaccuracy is being used to paint a false picture of a harmless child skipping merrily down the street rather than a person who, assuming the pictures I've seen are accurate, has the build and power of an adult and could legitimately be seen as a threat by someone in their late twenties.

The rights and wrongs of this case would not change whether Trayvon was 17, 27 or 37. And they can be discussed perfectly well without the kind of spurious appeal to emotionalism that is intended by saying "he was just a baby".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He was old enough to have been in trouble for possession of marijuana . . .

If you think that pot makes people prone to violence, I think you've seen Reefer Madness one time too many.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Traditional self-defense" generally places an obligation on the victim of an attack to retreat to safety if he can, and only permits him to use force in self-defense if there is no other reasonable alternative.

"Stand your ground" type laws remove the obligation to retreat - if someone is attacked in a place where he is legally entitled to be, he doesn't have to consider running away as one of his options.

The Florida version also contains a poorly written clause discouraging prosecution of anyone claiming self defense.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Especially when the inaccuracy is being used to paint a false picture of a harmless child skipping merrily down the street . . .

And yet it was Zimmerman stalking/hunting Martin rather than the other way around. Why, exactly, is there a "skipping" standard? It's okay for an armed man to hunt down someone walking harmlessly down a street, but it would be wrong to do so if that person is skipping?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Especially when the inaccuracy is being used to paint a false picture of a harmless child skipping merrily down the street . . .
And yet it was Zimmerman stalking/hunting Martin rather than the other way around. Why, exactly, is there a "skipping" standard? It's okay for an armed man to hunt down someone walking harmlessly down a street, but it would be wrong to do so if that person is skipping?

You know damn well what I was talking about.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Another question from a Canadian:

How are Stand your ground laws different from the usual self-defense argument? My understanding is that with traditional self-defense argument is that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove he had a reasonable belief that his life was threatened which justifies taking action.
"Traditional self-defense" generally places an obligation on the victim of an attack to retreat to safety if he can, and only permits him to use force in self-defense if there is no other reasonable alternative.

"Stand your ground" type laws remove the obligation to retreat - if someone is attacked in a place where he is legally entitled to be, he doesn't have to consider running away as one of his options.

The key, at least IMO, is that SYG puts the burden of proof on the dead person.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

These are still not capital crimes though - at best it provides some circumstantial evidence that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman.

Oh, stop with the "capital crimes" thing. Whether someone is legitimately killed in self-defense has nothing at all to do with the legal penalty for any crimes he may be guilty of.

As you say, these details of Martin's behaviour provide circumstantial evidence that makes it more plausible that be attacked Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin isn't dead because he liked to smoke a bit of weed.

If we take the arguments of the defense at face value, Trayvon Martin is dead because he attacked someone he thought he could beat up, and that person had a gun to defend himself with.

He is not dead as a punishment for anything. Discussing capital crimes is irrelevant. He is dead as a consequence of George Zimmerman defending himself against his attack.

(This assumes that the picture painted by Zimmerman's defense is accurate. We don't actually know who attacked who.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet it was Zimmerman stalking/hunting Martin rather than the other way around. Why, exactly, is there a "skipping" standard? It's okay for an armed man to hunt down someone walking harmlessly down a street, but it would be wrong to do so if that person is skipping?
You know damn well what I was talking about.

Not really. You seem to be making the case that it's okay to shoot adults (or near-adults) because they're all technically guilty of something, but then you argue the contrary point.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As you say, these details of Martin's behaviour provide circumstantial evidence that makes it more plausible that be attacked Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin isn't dead because he liked to smoke a bit of weed.

Yep. One puff of that demon weed and you'll axe murder your entire family. That's how it works, right? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Stop twisting the arguments: you know very well that that wasn't the point being made!

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(This assumes that the picture painted by Zimmerman's defense is accurate. We don't actually know who attacked who.)

Which is precisely why the jury (regrettably in my suspicion) had no choice in law but to acquit. I personally think that Zimmerman 'did it', but my personal opinion isn't evidence, of which there is precious little in this case.

[ 16. July 2013, 15:07: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
A few questions.

It may be legal to have shot a 16 year old who was on his way home from buying candy, but in what world is it fair? The idea that the jury system is great and the verdict was correct seems to have nothing at all to do with fairness.

Second, in what scenario does this 16 year old make it home safely?" Without a confrontation?

Third, do people realize that this was a child who was shot? He was 16. That equates with grade 10 in Canada, probably the same there, i.e., just finished grade 9. He was a child.

Fourth, was he old enough to buy a gun? An inflammatory comment I heard yesterday was whether there needs to be a program to arm young black people, school children etc.

Agin I'm wondering whether you would think it was okay for me to be shot given I'm 39. His age doesn't make a jot of difference. No one should get shot when coming home from buying candy.

And frankly the trial isn't about fairness to the person who got shot. The trial isn't about him. It's about the other guy.

Tips for preventing people of any age from getting shot on the way home from the store:

1. Don't go looking for a fight. Or at least, don't tell your friends you're looking for one.

2. Don't live in a country that gives out licences for concealed weapons like THEY are candy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
SYG does not cover situations when someone is simply being followed. The followee has to have good reason to believe that harm is intended.

Are you telling me that if some guy conspicuously followed you in his car, then got out of it near to where you were, that you wouldn't feel in danger of any harm? Really? You are made of sterner stuff than most of us, I trow.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You know damn well what I was talking about.
Not really.

So instead you chose a ridiculous interpretation and put words in Marvin's mouth?

I thought that this:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well that makes it okay then. Glad to hear his life wasn't cut tragically short or anything.

Was just dry sarcasm. Not that you actually thought that was the point that Marvin was making. And now honestly think that he believes that "it's okay to shoot adults (or near-adults) because they're all technically guilty of something"??? Honestly??? You seriously thought that was the point he was trying to make?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet it was Zimmerman stalking/hunting Martin rather than the other way around. Why, exactly, is there a "skipping" standard? It's okay for an armed man to hunt down someone walking harmlessly down a street, but it would be wrong to do so if that person is skipping?
You know damn well what I was talking about.
Not really. You seem to be making the case that it's okay to shoot adults (or near-adults) because they're all technically guilty of something, but then you argue the contrary point.

No.

I'm arguing the point that (under Florida law) it's OK to shoot someone in self-defence if you reasonably believe your life to be in genuine danger. And it seems to me that all these "he was just a baby" posts are aimed at minimising that perception of danger in the eyes of those reading. They're creating a false image of innocence and harmlessness that implicitly states that self-defence cannot possibly have been the reason the gun fired, because how can a little schoolkid going shopping for candy be a threat to a grown man? And that image is, quite simply, a lie.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
SYG does not cover situations when someone is simply being followed. The followee has to have good reason to believe that harm is intended.
Are you telling me that if some guy conspicuously followed you in his car, then got out of it near to where you were, that you wouldn't feel in danger of any harm? Really? You are made of sterner stuff than most of us, I trow.

Shit, Billy Bob, I'd be at DEFCON 4. [Eek!]

As for Zimmerman's "beating head on concrete" story, how does he walk away with no concussion and no stitches, just a couple of butterfly bandaids? And how does Martin see Zimmerman's gun when supposedly on top of Zimmerman, if the gun is in the small of his back, inside his pants, in a black holster?

He may have been acquitted, but Zimmerman showed himself to be a lying <insert whatever>. One of his attorneys opened with a knock-knock joke. Another's children were tweeting comments about the trial. Worst of all, the prosecution didn't just drop the ball, they practically took a knee, and ran out the clock. The whole thing was a travesty.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They're creating a false image of innocence and harmlessness that implicitly states that self-defence cannot possibly have been the reason the gun fired, because how can a little schoolkid going shopping for candy be a threat to a grown man? And that image is, quite simply, a lie.

Whereas a big schoolkid shopping for candy is a clear and present danger?

Quite frankly, the emphasis placed on Martin's relative youth is typical of the long-established rules of the game for shooting young black men. As we can see by the posts concentrating on Martin's pot use the implication is that if a young black man is shot and is anything less than a living saint, he clearly had it coming. You may not like those rules, but they're the ones Americans play by.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

What was the knock-knock joke?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As for Zimmerman's "beating head on concrete" story, how does he walk away with no concussion and no stitches, just a couple of butterfly bandaids?

Given that that's apparently the only part of the story that has eyewitness verification I'm inclined to believe it happened.

As for stitches v.s. butterfly strips, I've had to have both applied to forehead wounds in my life and I wouldn't have said that the injuries themselves were significantly different. I was certainly bleeding a lot in both cases - and neither resulted in a concussion.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Whereas a big schoolkid shopping for candy is a clear and present danger?

If said schoolkid becomes aggressive, yes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

So does this case indicate that if you fight an armed man, they are permitted to kill you, if they feel beaten by you, or in danger, irrespective of who started the fight? Just trying to get some perspective here. So it would be quite possible to provoke a fight, with the intention of killing someone, and be acquitted, if you argue that you were in danger?

[ 16. July 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

"Eye witness verification" is about as close to an oxymoron as it gets.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So does this case indicate that if you fight an armed man, they are permitted to kill you, if they feel beaten by you, or in danger, irrespective of who started the fight? Just trying to get some perspective here. So it would be quite possible to provoke a fight, with the intention of killing someone, and be acquitted, if you argue that you were in danger?

According to Florida law, yes. As long as you did not state your intention.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Okay, so the 17 year old child (thanks for the correction) was intimidating, very strong and big, such that a small weak man (in comparison) would only follow and accost him if he had a gun?

The 17 year old called the man who was following him names. Did he know why? Was the man engaging in harassment of him? Is part of the problem giving the small man a gun such that he feels powerful? Was Zimmerman intending some sort of arrest?

I'm not sure what the term "crazy ass cracker" exactly. Is an "ass cracker" a term for a john looking for a male prostitute, which is what it conjures in my mind, though some searches indicate it is a southern USA racial epithet. [Razz]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(This assumes that the picture painted by Zimmerman's defense is accurate. We don't actually know who attacked who.)
Which is precisely why the jury (regrettably in my suspicion) had no choice in law but to acquit. I personally think that Zimmerman 'did it', but my personal opinion isn't evidence, of which there is precious little in this case.

I agree with Matt. There are two separate questions here:
Are there explanations other than racism for the fact that George Zimmerman was not found to be criminally liable?
What do we think the truth is?

As far as I can see whether you agree with the jury or not, there are reasons other than racial prejudice that might have led the jury to consider that criminal liability had not been established.

That has nothing to do with the truth of what happened that night. But it isn't the Court's role to establish that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So does this case indicate that if you fight an armed man, they are permitted to kill you, if they feel beaten by you, or in danger, irrespective of who started the fight? Just trying to get some perspective here. So it would be quite possible to provoke a fight, with the intention of killing someone, and be acquitted, if you argue that you were in danger?
According to Florida law, yes. As long as you did not state your intention.

Yes, I forgot that bit. I think one interesting psychological thing here, is that you may well not know your intention, until you've carried it out. I think people often start something with a certain goal, which remains covert, or unconscious, until they've done it, and maybe not even then.

I mean that someone can go out with a murderous rage, without knowing it. However, possibly this is a cul de sac. I guess it would scramble the law also too much.

[ 16. July 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
lilBuddha: According to Florida law, yes. As long as you did not state your intention.

That sucks.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I just love how folks talk about shopping for candy as if this all happened in the doorway of the shop.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Eye witness verification" is about as close to an oxymoron as it gets.

"Support" then. Point is, there's third party evidence that backs it up.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So does this case indicate that if you fight an armed man, they are permitted to kill you, if they feel beaten by you, or in danger, irrespective of who started the fight? Just trying to get some perspective here. So it would be quite possible to provoke a fight, with the intention of killing someone, and be acquitted, if you argue that you were in danger?
According to Florida law, yes. As long as you did not state your intention.

Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight. Only one person alive today knows the answer to that, the rest of us are just speculating based on the few facts that we do know about the case.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.

I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As for Zimmerman's "beating head on concrete" story, how does he walk away with no concussion and no stitches, just a couple of butterfly bandaids?
Given that that's apparently the only part of the story that has eyewitness verification I'm inclined to believe it happened.

As for stitches v.s. butterfly strips, I've had to have both applied to forehead wounds in my life and I wouldn't have said that the injuries themselves were significantly different. I was certainly bleeding a lot in both cases - and neither resulted in a concussion.

Within a couple of days of the incident, video footage of Zimmerman at the police station appeared. That footage shows damage to the back of his head.

I remember precisely because it was discussed on the Ship and it was one of the key reasons for me beginning to think there was more to this story than sweet little kid buying candy gets shot.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.
I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.

I understand that point. The question to answer there is: if someone were to shoot someone else who was following them in a car would that constitute self-defence in Florida? If not, then I'm not convinced that it counts as starting the fight for the same purposes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.
I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.

Yes, it's partly a question of local mores, isn't it? Where I grew up, following someone in a car could get you dragged out of it, and your head kicked in, but you would not be killed. But I don't know Florida custom and practice at all.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Where I grew up, following someone in a car could get you dragged out of it, and your head kicked in

Not legally. In the eyes of the law the people doing the dragging and kicking would be the aggressors, and if you somehow killed them in self-defence you wouldn't be found guilty of murder.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.
I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.

And I don't because of the extensive time delay between that move and the actual fight. Time gets compressed when we talk about different components of this incident. This not a case of one unbroken interaction between the 2 people.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Where I grew up, following someone in a car could get you dragged out of it, and your head kicked in
Not legally. In the eyes of the law the people doing the dragging and kicking would be the aggressors, and if you somehow killed them in self-defence you wouldn't be found guilty of murder.

What, in the UK?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What, in the UK?

Not if you shot them, obviously, what with guns being illegal here and all. But if, say, you hit them with a loose paving stone or a handy rock or something? I'd be surprised if you'd be found guilty.

[ 16. July 2013, 16:58: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What, in the UK?
Not if you shot them, obviously, what with guns being illegal here and all. But if, say, you hit them with a loose paving stone or a handy rock or something? I'd be surprised if you'd be found guilty.

I think it depends also on who it is. If it was two gangs, the police and CPS can come down very heavy on killings. I think they go around warning gangs about this, for example, the law on joint enterprise has become tough. I expect there are a few cases like this (car following, driver beaten up, kills an attacker; must google).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love how folks talk about shopping for candy as if this all happened in the doorway of the shop.

Equally loved is how we get to the 17 year old beating the armed man who then shoots him, in the relative absence of other detail. If we focus on certain specific details only, then the story can be told as supportive of a specific opinion. That I'll grant you.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.
I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.
And I don't because of the extensive time delay between that move and the actual fight. Time gets compressed when we talk about different components of this incident. This not a case of one unbroken interaction between the 2 people.

The time delay give more weight to Martin feeling threatened, IMO. Especially adding stepping from the car and continuing to follow.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Agreed that the time delay makes it twice as threatening. A few weeks ago here a man breaks up a fight outside a bar and then goes back in to drink. When he leaves the bar he finds one of the fighters brought friends and a baseball bat. The guy is still in very serious condition and I have heard will not fully recover.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He was old enough to have been in trouble for possession of marijuana . . .
If you think that pot makes people prone to violence, I think you've seen Reefer Madness one time too many.

Oh please, are there still people who think mentioning that old film makes them cool?

Nowhere did I say or imply that pot makes people violent. That is one hundred percent invention on your part. The rest of my sentence, half of which you conveniently cut off, makes it clear that I mentioned the marijuana as evidence that Martin was past the "baby," stage in his life. Hence the words "old enough." If eating candy is evidence in the mind of many that he was a child then this is counter evidence that he sometimes indulged in more grown-up activity.

Some people are just hell bent on turning this case into something it's not. There was no illegal gun use, no racial profiling, no drugs or alcohol involved, no one was claiming the stand-your-ground defense.

Zimmerman wasn't on trial for being stupid, for disobeying a policeman or for following Martin down a public street.

Zimmerman said he was pinned under Martin and feared for his life and so he shot Martin in self-defense. There was some evidence to back his story. There was very little evidence to the contrary to say he was lying. That's the whole case right there.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Some people are just hell bent on turning this case into something it's not. There was no illegal gun use,

It ought to be illegal for anyone who's not a cop to roam the streets looking for trouble-makers and be armed while doing it.

quote:
no racial profiling,

This is in dispute. Lots of apparently decent people find themselves having racist reactions to young black guys when they meet them on the street.

quote:
no drugs or alcohol involved,

OK, this is accurate.

quote:
no one was claiming the stand-your-ground defense.

The judge said in the instructions to the jury that if Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal and was in a place he had a right to be, he had the right to stand his ground.

quote:
[/b]Zimmerman said he was pinned under Martin and feared for his life and so he shot Martin in self-defense. There was some evidence to back his story. There was very little evidence to the contrary to say he was lying. That's the whole case right there. [/QB]

That's the whole case, but not the whole story. The truth is that we've got a lot of fucked-up laws in the country and a lot of fucked-up application of the laws, and black people bear an enormously disproportionate burden of these problem.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Twilight: Zimmerman said he was pinned under Martin and feared for his life and so he shot Martin in self-defense. There was some evidence to back his story. There was very little evidence to the contrary to say he was lying. That's the whole case right there.

To me personally, there's another part of the story: that the aggression started with Zimmerman. Following someone with a gun, first in a car and then on foot, are aggressive moves to me. That they aren't under Floridan law just shows to me how stupid these laws are. It is these aggressive moves that lead to the whole mess.

So to me personally, Zimmerman is morally the guilty party. I know that this doesn't account for much, but that's my opinion on this internet forum.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
RuthW: That's the whole case, but not the whole story. The truth is that we've got a lot of fucked-up laws in the country and a lot of fucked-up application of the laws, and black people bear an enormously disproportionate burden of these problem.

Exactly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Twilight: Zimmerman said he was pinned under Martin and feared for his life and so he shot Martin in self-defense. There was some evidence to back his story. There was very little evidence to the contrary to say he was lying. That's the whole case right there.
To me personally, there's another part of the story: that the aggression started with Zimmerman. Following someone with a gun, first in a car and then on foot, are aggressive moves to me. That they aren't under Floridan law just shows to me how stupid these laws are. It is these aggressive moves that lead to the whole mess.

So to me personally, Zimmerman is morally the guilty party. I know that this doesn't account for much, but that's my opinion on this internet forum.

I agree with that, but a moral case is quite distinct from a legal case. No-one is found guilty on moral grounds, as far as I can see, which is correct. I suppose the law is dimly and approximately based on morality. Well, Zimmerman did say 'they always get away'.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: I agree with that, but a moral case is quite distinct from a legal case.

I'm well aware of that. So, I am revolted by this case, and by the fucked-up laws that allowed it to have this outcome. What I hope for is that this case will at least strenghten a movement to try to bring jurisdiction more in line with what is moral.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose laws do reflect some kind of moral position - for example, self-defence laws reflect the idea that it is OK to use violence sometimes, if violence is used against you. However, here it seems to have become quite baroque. In the UK, there used to be laws about 'proportionate' use of violence, but I don't know if this still holds. In other words, you can't kill a burglar, unless he threatens you. One of my neighbours shot a burglar in the back, and went to jail, and of course, was feted locally as a hero!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Surely the point is that we don't know who actually started the fight.
I think a big distinction on this thread is that there are people who already see the act of following someone in a car with a gun as an aggressive move. I'm definitely one of them.
And I don't because of the extensive time delay between that move and the actual fight. Time gets compressed when we talk about different components of this incident. This not a case of one unbroken interaction between the 2 people.
The time delay give more weight to Martin feeling threatened, IMO. Especially adding stepping from the car and continuing to follow.

The problem, though, is that it's not clear for me there was continued visual contact throughout that gap.

Certainly in Zimmerman's phone call it sounds as if he is either losing visual contact or at least struggling to maintain it. I don't know the content of Martin's phone call in great detail, so I don't know what information that contains about how consistent the visual contact was or how close it was.

These things are pretty important to the overall impression of the situation.

When I learnt about examination and cross-examination last year, it was quite startling to realise how much people will create their own, differing impressions of a scene if you only give them broad outline information. If you want everyone, or more importantly everyone on the jury, to have exactly the same mental impression of layout and positioning and distance you have to give them a LOT of information.

I would have to read the trial transcript on full to see just how much detail they got about locations, distances, timing, locations of each witness etc etc. I'm not sure precisely how much information we have on Zimmerman's movements in space and time, never mind Martin's.

As it stands it's difficult to agree that anything Zimmerman did was sufficiently threatening to create a situation where a confrontation was probable. I just don't have enough data. The data I do have at least suggests there was time and distance for Martin to get home. Yes, Martin himself may not have been obliged to go home, but that's a matter for a trial of Martin, not of Zimmerman.

And to the extent that American law encourages or permits people to deal with these situations by standing their ground and engaging in conflict rather than evading conflict, it does make this kind of outcome more likely regardless of which interpretation is placed on who started it and precisely when 'it' actually started.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Addendum: while people spend time debating stand your ground laws and attempts at gun control, I find myself wondering why I never see anyone going for the jugular and starting a campaign to amend the Second Amendment. Those States that have actually tried to do something serious about weapons have been stymied by a law that fundamentally gives people the right to walk around with a weapon.

The rest of western society has moved on from the idea that duels are an awesome way to settle arguments. Why the blazes do you still have a constitution that encourages weapons? It was amended. It can be amended again. Start doing something about it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

orfeo

Your point about data is apt. I also think there is a point about narrative construction. I have seen various narratives about the Zimmerman/Martin interaction, and really, you can construct a narrative in various ways, to make either one look bad or good, the victim, or the assailant.

This is not particularly surprising, since quite a lot is known about narrative construction, and how variable it is. It just makes my mind boggle, how the legal system is able to construct narratives and then argue that they are reliable. But I suppose that is the jury's job - to select a particular narrative as somehow more convincing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: while people spend time debating stand your ground laws and attempts at gun control, I find myself wondering why I never see anyone going for the jugular and starting a campaign to amend the Second Amendment. Those States that have actually tried to do something serious about weapons have been stymied by a law that fundamentally gives people the right to walk around with a weapon.

The rest of western society has moved on from the idea that duels are an awesome way to settle arguments. Why the blazes do you still have a constitution that encourages weapons? It was amended. It can be amended again. Start doing something about it.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is an onerous process with many "veto points" where an intransigent minority can choke off action. You only need 34 (out of 100) U.S. Senators or 146 (out of 435) members of the House of Representatives or twelve state legislatures (out of fifty) to vote against it (or in the case of state legislatures, just not vote on it at all) to block an amendment.

While the Constitution has been amended eighteen times (if you count the first ten amendments, which were passed as a batch, as one time), the U.S. has not to date amended any part of the Bill of Rights so there's some psychological inertia there as well.

[ 16. July 2013, 19:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo

Your point about data is apt. I also think there is a point about narrative construction. I have seen various narratives about the Zimmerman/Martin interaction, and really, you can construct a narrative in various ways, to make either one look bad or good, the victim, or the assailant.

This is not particularly surprising, since quite a lot is known about narrative construction, and how variable it is. It just makes my mind boggle, how the legal system is able to construct narratives and then argue that they are reliable. But I suppose that is the jury's job - to select a particular narrative as somehow more convincing.

The only alternative is cameras in every room and every street or people wearing little tracking collars with video. Even then it's still possible to construct different interpretations of the intentions and motivations behind someone's physical actions.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
. . . no racial profiling . . .

I'm not sure how you can be so definitive about that. There was something about Martin that made Zimmerman erroneously decide he was a criminal. Given the local (national really) history of assuming that all young black men are criminals, why isn't that at least a possibility?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: while people spend time debating stand your ground laws and attempts at gun control, I find myself wondering why I never see anyone going for the jugular and starting a campaign to amend the Second Amendment. Those States that have actually tried to do something serious about weapons have been stymied by a law that fundamentally gives people the right to walk around with a weapon.

The rest of western society has moved on from the idea that duels are an awesome way to settle arguments. Why the blazes do you still have a constitution that encourages weapons? It was amended. It can be amended again. Start doing something about it.
Amending the U.S. Constitution is an onerous process with many "veto points" where an intransigent minority can choke off action. You only need 34 (out of 100) U.S. Senators or 146 (out of 435) members of the House of Representatives or twelve state legislatures (out of fifty) to vote against it (or in the case of state legislatures, just not vote on it at all) to block an amendment.

While the Constitution has been amended eighteen times (if you count the first ten amendments, which were passed as a batch, as one time), the U.S. has not to date amended any part of the Bill of Rights so there's some psychological inertia there as well.

Yes I realise that. But you had 90% of people supporting gun control and representatives voting against it. You know what representatives really like? Being reelected. It's about time people found ways of communicating they're pissed off and will vote people out of office.

Make it an issue. Have you not noticed the politicians hurriedly altering their stance on gay marriage as they sense the mood shift? Create a mood shift on weapons.

Frankly, the upset about the identity of the victim in this case is a second order issue that is obscuring a far more fundamental first order issue. Why would it be more okay if a middle ages white man such as myself got shot? Why would anyone be smiling and satisfied if the person who shot me went to jail? I'm still dead.

Here's the thing about manslaughter convictions. They're not deterrents. You cannot deter manslaughter when it's an unintentional crime. Not when the conditions for manslaughter to occur are so damn ripe. Stop saying, as a nation, that those conditions are acceptable and that there's only a problem when a victim is sympathetic.

Prevention is better than cure. The most obvious, fundamental prevention is sitting there waiting for someone to start creating pressure on your facile, popularity hungry politicians.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

orfeo

Yes. I've worked a lot with narrative theory in psychotherapy, and the first rule, is that there is no objective narrative. There are just the narratives that you prefer.

The other thing is that they change with time. I think Freud argued that even memory was a construct, and changed with time. His concept of Nachtraglichkeit actually shows that I can really change my point of view towards a memory, and hence its significance. In fact, the memory itself changes.

I suppose the law has to freeze narratives to an extent, otherwise it would be unworkable.

[ 16. July 2013, 20:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
There was no illegal gun use, no racial profiling...

Of course there was profiling. You seriously think he would have pursued a young white guy around the neighborhood half as determinedly? I'm not saying Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, but I would bet he followed him because he was black, even if he wasn't consciously aware that that's what he was doing.

Young black guys have a notoriously hard time getting from place to place without being hassled, even in broad daylight and dressed in suit and tie.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the upset about the identity of the victim in this case is a second order issue that is obscuring a far more fundamental first order issue. Why would it be more okay if a middle ages white man such as myself got shot?

As AA pointed out, the chances that someone like George Zimmerman would decide to hunt down and shoot a middle aged white man are quite remote.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Defense attorney's first words in the trial:

quote:
Knock, knock. Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Congratulations, you're on the jury.

He then expressed astonishment that nobody laughed. I know lawyers don`t have to be likeable, but that doesn`t sound to me like someone taking the proceedings completely seriously. At the end of the trial, he even claimed that if the races had been reversed, a black Zimmerman would never had been charged.

Re: racial profiling. The records of Zimmerman's calls to police show that all the suspicious persons he reported to police were black.

Re: drugs and alcohol. Everyone in the whold world now knows that Trayvon Martin had used marijuana. Apparently not many people know that Zimmerman was on prescription medication for ADD. The defense did a great job of demonizing the victim before the trial, and the prosecution didn`t follow up on this or many other bits of evidence.

Re: Cracker. I believe Trayvon`s exact words were "creepy-ass cracker". Nothing to do with homosexuality, just a turn of phrase like dumb-ass or asshat, and cracker meaning he was white.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, all the photos don't show him to be unusually muscular for someone of that age/height.

Have you looked at the photograph I linked to here?

Moo

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Re: 2nd Amendment. It is now possible to get a concealed-carry permit in all fifty states. That means that unless one is in a location where guns are explicitly forbidden, there might be someone with a concealed gun around, like Zimmerman with his hidden holster. Some people in the USA will feel safer knowing that. Others, not so much.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
At the end of the trial, he even claimed that if the races had been reversed, a black Zimmerman would never had been charged.

Which is ironic because the only reason the Martin case became nationally infamous was the Sanford Police Department's initial decision that the fatal shooting didn't require charging anyone, or much of an investigation for that matter.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.
The article referenced by Ruth quotes the instructions from the judge, which featured SYG prominently.

I didn't realize the judge had mentioned it. AFAIK the defense never did. They based their arguments on classic self-defense theory.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK the 'Stand your Ground Law' was not mentioned at all at the trial. The media have seriously misrepresented many aspects of this case.
The article referenced by Ruth quotes the instructions from the judge, which featured SYG prominently.
I didn't realize the judge had mentioned it. AFAIK the defense never did. They based their arguments on classic self-defense theory.

Moo

You say that as if the Stand Your Ground law is in some way distinct from the rest of Florida's self defense statutes. It isn't.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
decide to hunt down and shoot

Strong word choice there. I wouldn't want Zimmerman patrolling my block, as he seems like an idiot and a a bully, but even so, the facts are a little more complicated than you are acknowledging here.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the upset about the identity of the victim in this case is a second order issue that is obscuring a far more fundamental first order issue. Why would it be more okay if a middle ages white man such as myself got shot?
As AA pointed out, the chances that someone like George Zimmerman would decide to hunt down and shoot a middle aged white man are quite remote.

True. But I still think the question of why he tracked a particular person is still less fundamental than why he was tracking anybody and why he was armed REGARDLESS of whether he was intending to use it or not.

The whole notion of a neighbourhood patrol disturbs me to begin with.

[ 16. July 2013, 20:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
. . . no racial profiling . . .
I'm not sure how you can be so definitive about that. There was something about Martin that made Zimmerman erroneously decide he was a criminal. Given the local (national really) history of assuming that all young black men are criminals, why isn't that at least a possibility?

When Zimmermann first notified the dispatcher, he said that Martin appeared to be loitering aimlessly. It was raining, and most people do not like to loiter in the rain. There had been many burglaries in the neighborhood; burglars frequently loiter to decide what would be a good prospect.

When the dispatcher asked Zimmermann whether the suspect was white, black, or Hispanic, Zimmermann replied, "I'm not sure. He looks black."

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

One more visit to the "sweet child" meme:

Martin was tall and well-developed physically. I hold no opinions as to his possible "sweetness;" I personally don't know any 17-y.o. boys I'd use that adjective on. He was, nevertheless, both legally and cognitively a child. The human brain doesn't fully mature until about age 25.

I don't know how many 17-y.o. boys you know, but the few I know are largely insufferably cock-sure and convinced of their own invincibility.

Trayvon Martin was in fact a child, and his alleged willingness to jump a stranger (apparently without considering the possibility that the stranger might be armed) testifies to a juvenile lack of caution and immature judgment.

AFAICS, Trayvon Martin is dead at least in part because he was still a child.

Was he also big and potentially threatening physically? Sure, and that, wedded to his immaturity, got him shot.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Incidentally, California has a 'stand your ground' law.

In some ways it goes farther than the Florida law.

quote:
The instructions say a person under attack is even entitled, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

.

Moo

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

When the dispatcher asked Zimmermann whether the suspect was white, black, or Hispanic, Zimmermann replied, "I'm not sure. He looks black."

Moo

Doesn't that prove the point that Zimmerman believed he was black?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Do the words "I'm not sure" mean something different where you come from?

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

No, but when asked for the guy's race Zimmerman named a specific race. To me that "I'm not sure" sounds like "I'm not certain, but..." rather than "I have absolutely no idea".

Obviously he had some level of belief that Martin was black or he wouldn't have said so to the dispatcher.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
No, but when asked for the guy's race Zimmerman named a specific race. To me that "I'm not sure" sounds like "I'm not certain, but..." rather than "I have absolutely no idea".

Obviously he had some level of belief that Martin was black or he wouldn't have said so to the dispatcher.

Zimmermann did not say anything about race until the dispatcher asked the question, mentioning white, black, or Hispanic. At that point Zimmermann decided he appeared more like a black than a white or Hispanic. It's possible he hadn't thought about the matter until the dispatcher asked.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Porridge, I agree with your last post.

As to Zimmerman correctly identifying Martin as black, it's a totally pointless argument. What's relevant is the issue of Zimmerman regularly reporting black people. I'm going to assume that they were in fact black and that Zimmerman doesn't suffer from some profound visual defect.

The significance of that depends on an implicit assumption that there were other people of other colours wandering around that Zimmerman could have reported and didn't.

I'm not commenting on the validity of that assumption, I'm pointing out explicitly that it's an assumption. No one has, as far as I'm aware, led any evidence about the relative propensity of people of different races to be wandering around that neighbourhood in a manner that could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as questionable. For all I know the white youths around there had places to go that meant they didn't wander around. For all I know that's complete bullshit and Zimmerman was selective in his reporting.

[ 16. July 2013, 21:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: It was raining, and most people do not like to loiter in the rain.

According to my moral standards, this doesn't justify following someone with a gun.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
One more visit to the "sweet child" meme:

Martin was tall and well-developed physically. I hold no opinions as to his possible "sweetness;" I personally don't know any 17-y.o. boys I'd use that adjective on. He was, nevertheless, both legally and cognitively a child. The human brain doesn't fully mature until about age 25.

I don't know how many 17-y.o. boys you know, but the few I know are largely insufferably cock-sure and convinced of their own invincibility.

Trayvon Martin was in fact a child, and his alleged willingness to jump a stranger (apparently without considering the possibility that the stranger might be armed) testifies to a juvenile lack of caution and immature judgment.

AFAICS, Trayvon Martin is dead at least in part because he was still a child.

Was he also big and potentially threatening physically? Sure, and that, wedded to his immaturity, got him shot.

Eugene Robinson had thoughts along a similar line in yesterday's Washington Post.

quote:
If anyone wonders why African Americans feel so passionately about this case, it’s because we know that our 17-year-old sons are boys, not men. It’s because we know their adolescent bravura is just that — an imitation of manhood, not the real thing.

We know how frightened our sons would be, walking home alone on a rainy night and realizing they were being followed. We know how torn they would be between a child’s fear and a child’s immature idea of manly behavior. We know how they would struggle to decide the right course of action, flight or fight.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Moo: It was raining, and most people do not like to loiter in the rain.
According to my moral standards, this doesn't justify following someone with a gun.

No, but it does justify calling the police so they could come to investigate. Zimmermann followed Martin so he could tell the police where he was.

Moo

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Okay, so the 17 year old child (thanks for the correction) was intimidating, very strong and big, such that a small weak man (in comparison) would only follow and accost him if he had a gun?

IIRC, Zimmerman is a couple of stone heavier than Martin was; he was shorter but not necessarily smaller. And he would not have known that the kid was an experienced fighter.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna
And how does Martin see Zimmerman's gun when supposedly on top of Zimmerman, if the gun is in the small of his back, inside his pants, in a black holster?

What is your source of information about the location and color of Zimmermann's holster?

Moo

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, all the photos don't show him to be unusually muscular for someone of that age/height.
Have you looked at the photograph I linked to here?

Moo

Yes that was the photo I was referring to - and no, he isn't unusually muscular for someone of that age.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Moo: Zimmermann followed Martin so he could tell the police where he was.

No, Zimmerman told the police where Martin was, whereupon the police told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I actually saw it while watching trial coverage, but this is a detailed explanation with lots of pictures:

The Zimmerman Draw

And don`t forget that Zimmerman claimed that at this point, Martin was straddling him with his knees up in Zimmerman`s armpits.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Here is the dialog between Zimmermann and the dispatcher.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Moo: Zimmermann followed Martin so he could tell the police where he was.
No, Zimmerman told the police where Martin was, whereupon the police told Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

You're talking about different points of time, basically. It's clear from the phone call that Martin wasn't just standing still for the next 5 or 10 minutes while the police came. Rightly or wrongly, Zimmerman wanted to be up to date.

And the police said he didn't need to do that. They didn't order him not to.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see the problem, BWSmith. We're not on the same planet. You're on one where there is no racism, and all the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and other racist set-ups have been entirely ameliorated. Unfortunately I'm on this other one, where they have not.
Your skills of persuasion are a thing of legend.
You think I was trying to pursuade YOU of ANYTHING?

Hosting

This is a breach of C4 - if you are going to get personal, take it to hell. I should no tbe having to say this again.

/Hosting

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: And the police said he didn't need to do that. They didn't order him not to.

In any case, Zimmerman following Martin while he was armed makes him the aggressor to me.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
orfeo: And the police said he didn't need to do that. They didn't order him not to.
In any case, Zimmerman following Martin while he was armed makes him the aggressor to me.

Why 'while he was armed'?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Why 'while he was armed'?

'He' is Zimmerman here. To me personally, following someone first by car and by foot with a loaded gun, is an aggressive move. I know, because both things have happened to me.

We'll never know exactly what happened here, but one thing I do know: Zimmerman started it.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Not only the aggressor.

In the eyes of a typical 17 year old youth these days, a quite possible sexual predator, and in the eyes of a 17 year old African American youth, either a potential predator or hate crime perpretator. In either case, someone who is the lowest of the low. I'm shocked that Zimmerman was so blinded by his zeal that he failed to realize this.

By the way, I find the holster article very interesting. Was this matter raised at trial? If not, why not?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're talking about different points of time, basically. It's clear from the phone call that Martin wasn't just standing still for the next 5 or 10 minutes while the police came. Rightly or wrongly, Zimmerman wanted to be up to date.

Given that Trayvon Martin had not engaged in any criminal act that evening, I think we can safely say "wrongly" at this point.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
orfeo: Why 'while he was armed'?
'He' is Zimmerman here. To me personally, following someone first by car and by foot with a loaded gun, is an aggressive move. I know, because both things have happened to me.

We'll never know exactly what happened here, but one thing I do know: Zimmerman started it.

The problem I have with this is the lack of evidence about Zimmerman's intentions regarding the gun. Especially in the USA where, more's the pity, carrying a gun is a fairly unremarkable thing. In other countries, someone might only carry a gun on a particular journey because they have some plans to use it on that journey. In the USA you can't say that. People just carry guns around.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Dave W.: Really? What's just the right frequency, would you say?
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is something you should give a sarcastic answer to. Being mugged and having a gun pointed at your head by a drug-crazed guy is a terrible, terrible thing. I hope it will never happen to you.

Well I hope so too, but in my view your unfortunate experiences only serve to underline the ridiculousness of your expressed gladness at not living in the US. You say you’re contrasting the situation with that of your native home – but you actually live in Brazil, where apparently you've encountered armed, drug-crazed muggers numerous times, and you’re far more likely to be murdered than in either the US or the Netherlands and (I suspect) also less likely to enjoy any kind of posthumous justice.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

I have worked with teenagers in the Netherlands that have grave social and behavioural problems. Most of them have been in touch with the juridical mill already. Imagine that one of them would be followed by a stranger in a car like this. I don't have to guess very hard to know what the gut reaction of most of them will be: "I'm going to punch this guy in the face."

That isn't right, and it isn't justifiable. But I'd also hope that it wouldn't lead to one of these teenagers' death. Society should have better ways of dealing with people with agression problems.

Yes, this kind of thug calculus is something that typically arises in people (usually men) with no power. It's not so far away, in fact, from the domestic violence that we have been discussing in another thread, and we see it in young urban men strutting around like bantam cocks accusing each other of "dissing" them.

And I would agree that we as a society (or a group of societies) are not very good at preventing young men from engaging in thuggery.

But what about the actual victim in your scenario - the innocent stranger who got punched in the face? It's a bit much to expect the victim of an unprovoked assault to play by the Marquess of Queensberry's rules.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
orfeo: Why 'while he was armed'?
'He' is Zimmerman here. To me personally, following someone first by car and by foot with a loaded gun, is an aggressive move. I know, because both things have happened to me.

We'll never know exactly what happened here, but one thing I do know: Zimmerman started it.
The problem I have with this is the lack of evidence about Zimmerman's intentions regarding the gun. Especially in the USA where, more's the pity, carrying a gun is a fairly unremarkable thing. In other countries, someone might only carry a gun on a particular journey because they have some plans to use it on that journey. In the USA you can't say that. People just carry guns around.

I think this aspect of it makes it a very difficult case for me to assess. The idea of a neighbourhood watch person being armed strikes me as very bizarre, and actually frightening (and dangerous); plus, the idea of someone concluding a fight by shooting someone just seems criminal. Obviously to many US citizens both seem normal and indeed desirable. So it's hard to filter this stuff out of it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think this aspect of it makes it a very difficult case for me to assess. The idea of a neighbourhood watch person being armed strikes me as very bizarre, and actually frightening (and dangerous);

Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol at the time. He was driving to the store to buy groceries.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Not only the aggressor.

In the eyes of a typical 17 year old youth these days, a quite possible sexual predator, and in the eyes of a 17 year old African American youth, either a potential predator or hate crime perpretator. In either case, someone who is the lowest of the low. I'm shocked that Zimmerman was so blinded by his zeal that he failed to realize this.

By the way, I find the holster article very interesting. Was this matter raised at trial? If not, why not?

I was thinking along similar lines. There's a range of possibilities here, but we do have to consider the phone call Martin made to his girlfriend that he was thinking of having a fight.

A possibility, and one that's very consistent with the phone call, is that Martin thought Zimmerman was gay and decided to engage in the old sport of poofter-bashing, or whatever it's called in Florida. Another is that he thought that Zimmerman was a predator, got scared and decided to get in first. A problem with this is that any stalking was happening in a public street and within a short distance of Martin's home - he could have gone there. There are other possibilities between these.

As for the holster argument: I don't know what the ethical rules are in Florida, nor the relevant laws of evidence, but before a prosecutor made a submission along those lines to a jury here, Canada, NZ or the UK, it would have been necessary to have put all the detail to Zimmerman in cross-examination and given him the opportunity to deal with it . Even then, any submission could only have been within the confines of Zimmerman's answers (for the technically minded, it's the rule in Browne v Dun).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But what about the actual victim in your scenario - the innocent stranger who got punched in the face? It's a bit much to expect the victim of an unprovoked assault to play by the Marquess of Queensberry's rules.

Apparently he was utterly in the wrong for following someone and deserved everything he got.

It would appear that some people here think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime, and if they do take that course of action they have no right to defend themselves should the suspect become aggressive?

I once got into a confrontation with some hoodlum because I'd seen him vandalising a train, followed him off it and reported his crime to the booking office at the station. He then rounded on me outside the station, acting in a very threatening manner and shouting that I should have just minded my own business. It didn't escalate because the kid was all talk and no action, but if it had would I have been within my rights to defend myself, or would I have been the aggressor for following him off the train? And if defending myself would have been OK, then if it had been in a place where carrying a gun was legal and I had one on me, would I have been within my rights to use it to defend myself?

I think I would. And the galling thing is that some of you seem to be agreeing with the punk that I should have just minded my own business and looked the other way. In fact, some seem to be going so far as to say I should be legally obliged to look the other way.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It would appear that some people here think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime, and if they do take that course of action they have no right to defend themselves should the suspect become aggressive?

What crime was Zimmerman stopping? Use small words because I'm stupid.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
and cracker meaning he was white.

Yes, in the same way that "nigger" means the person being described is black.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What crime was Zimmerman stopping? Use small words because I'm stupid.

In point of fact? None. Martin was not actually engaged in any illegal activity.

Zimmerman thought he was though, and was trying to do what he could to keep tabs on him so that the police would know where to go when they turned up. I don't personally think that's wrong, so long as he didn't actually confront Martin.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's correct that keeping tabs on someone isn't illegal. I would say it's risky, especially if you're not a cop. It can easily be construed by the person being kept tabs on as harassment, which can lead to who knows what, as in this case it did. But I don't think Zimmerman did anything illegal, well, in US law, at any rate, if his story is correct. And it's the only story we have, as the other guy who might tell his story, is dead.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say it's risky, especially if you're not a cop.

Very risky, yes. Foolhardy, even. But that doesn't negate your right to defend yourself should the risk become a clear and present danger, as some here seem to be suggesting.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

All I can say is that my male relatives have been subjected to suspicion by police and citizenry alike, sometimes to the point of violence, for simply being muscular black men. Everyone in my family is university educated with very successful careers and no one has a criminal record.

The Trayvon Martin story, legal issues aside, is simply a very scary one for anyone with a black male loved one. Because whether or not Zimmerman was found guilty, Trayvon is dead. It can happen (and does happen) to any black man in America.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say it's risky, especially if you're not a cop.
Very risky, yes. Foolhardy, even. But that doesn't negate your right to defend yourself should the risk become a clear and present danger, as some here seem to be suggesting.

I suppose one solution is for black kids to go armed, then if someone pulls a gun on them, in the middle of a fight, they have a chance to pull theirs faster. Isn't that the logic of carrying guns?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose one solution is for black kids to go armed, then if someone pulls a gun on them, in the middle of a fight, they have a chance to pull theirs faster. Isn't that the logic of carrying guns?

This.

It's this "logic" which is behind the NRA and gun manufacturers' efforts to turn the US into an armed camp. It's this logic which has me thinking seriously about orfeo's suggestion of a movement supporting Second Amendment reform.

Whatever happened to the "militia' in the Second Amendment? Whatever happened to the "well-regulated" part?

It seems clear to this ordinary citizen that the intent of the Founders in formulating this clause was to provide for the general defense of citizens in the event of armed conflict from without (they had, after all, just finished fighting with the British), without having to create a standing army (which a brand-new government was hard-pressed to afford).

It surely wasn't so that we could practically ensure armed conflict* among ourselves by arming every crackpot, wingnut, conspiracy theorist, and potentially-racist-motivated self-appointed public guardian in the country.

We now HAVE a standing army. We now HAVE police forces. (Yes, some of these are also threats to citizens of color, but not all.) We make the jobs of the latter far more dangerous and difficult with these #@%*! laws that virtually guarantee that every Tom, Dick, and Harry turns into an individual, untrained, vigilante criminal justice system which targets The Other.

* I would submit that people living in various parts of Chicago (for one example -- there are others) are, in fact, living in war zones.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It would appear that some people here think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime

I think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime by following a suspect with a gun. If you think you need a gun for stopping this crime, then it is something you should leave to the professionals.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The Trayvon Martin story, legal issues aside, is simply a very scary one for anyone with a black male loved one. Because whether or not Zimmerman was found guilty, Trayvon is dead. It can happen (and does happen) to any black man in America.

Given US gun laws, it can happen (and does) to anyone in America. But that's almost a dead horse issue, and a tangent in any event.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Ten years ago I visited San Francisco. I was part of a Cavalier Spaniel website and was invited to visit an online friend I'd made.

They lived in a fabulous place with a pool and huge grounds. They organised a 'doggy party' for us which was great fun.

The topic of race came up as I was staying in a Super 8 downtown and they couldn't believe I would think of staying in such an area. I said I live in such an area and that, where I live, this was quite normal (to have many races living side by side)

Then they were laughing that they had called the police the day before because a black man walked past their house. The police turned up quickly to arrest him, but he turned out to be the new postman.

Everyone there seemed to think calling the police was exactly the right thing to do.

All the bloke did was to pass their house!

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say it's risky, especially if you're not a cop.
Very risky, yes. Foolhardy, even. But that doesn't negate your right to defend yourself should the risk become a clear and present danger, as some here seem to be suggesting.
I suppose one solution is for black kids to go armed, then if someone pulls a gun on them, in the middle of a fight, they have a chance to pull theirs faster. Isn't that the logic of carrying guns?

A better solution would be to not start a fight in the first place. Someone's following you? OK, be wary and alert, and try to get to a safe place. Don't turn around and punch them in the face, especially if you're in a country where they might very well be carrying a gun and, if so, are legally permitted to use it in self-defence.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It would appear that some people here think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime
I think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime by following a suspect with a gun. If you think you need a gun for stopping this crime, then it is something you should leave to the professionals.

Well yes, I personally agree about the "with a gun" part, mostly because I don't think carrying a gun should be legal at all.

For now, how about you let me know whether you do indeed think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime. Once you've provided that answer, we can go on to discuss which perfectly legal items that you may have on your person can legitimately be used to that end. Sound fair?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Marvin:

quote:
It would appear that some people here think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime...

The first thing you are taught on any first-aid course is that you should not attempt to give first-aid if doing so would put you in danger. If the person you want to give first aid to is brandishing a knife, for example, you must persuade them to put the knife down before approaching them.

Of course, if the person bleeding to death is someone you love you may forget about the guidelines or decide to ignore them; then the emergency services will probably have two casualties to deal with instead of just one.

In this case, the result was two casualties (including one fatality) in a (possibly) well-meant effort to prevent a (non-existent) crime.

Oh, and what LeRoc said - with the caveat that even the professionals have been known to make mistakes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say it's risky, especially if you're not a cop.
Very risky, yes. Foolhardy, even. But that doesn't negate your right to defend yourself should the risk become a clear and present danger, as some here seem to be suggesting.
I suppose one solution is for black kids to go armed, then if someone pulls a gun on them, in the middle of a fight, they have a chance to pull theirs faster. Isn't that the logic of carrying guns?
A better solution would be to not start a fight in the first place. Someone's following you? OK, be wary and alert, and try to get to a safe place. Don't turn around and punch them in the face, especially if you're in a country where they might very well be carrying a gun and, if so, are legally permitted to use it in self-defence.

Sensible advice. I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.

You could also say, that if you are going to follow someone, try not to follow 17 year olds, as they tend to be prickly fuckers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whatever happened to the "militia' in the Second Amendment? Whatever happened to the "well-regulated" part?

A good case has been made that the main purpose of the Second Amendment, as seen by the Founders, was to preserve state control of the slave patrols, armed white men who would make sure that anyone with black skin wasn't anywhere he wasn't supposed to be. Quite frankly, Zimmerman was acting in complete harmony with the Second Amendment.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.

I got in a few fights when I was that age, sure. But I never started any - I never threw the first punch. And that's the factor that makes all the difference in this discussion, ISTM.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: For now, how about you let me know whether you do indeed think that no ordinary citizen should ever attempt to stop a crime.

In the Netherlands, my possibilities as an ordinary citizen to attempt to stop a crime are rather limited. What I'm allowed to do is to seek a safe distance and call the police, and that's pretty much it. The reason for this policy is that they don't want everyone to go thinking they're Sonny Crockett and entering situations that they can't control, because this could lead to... well, to the mess we're seeing here in Florida.

I have no problems with this policy.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In the eyes of a typical 17 year old youth these days, a quite possible sexual predator, and in the eyes of a 17 year old African American youth, either a potential predator or hate crime perpretator.

There is no evidence that Martin thought Zimmermann might be a sexual predator. The idea has arisen because of a misinterpretation of what Martin said on the phone to his girlfriend.

Martin said that Zimmermann was 'a creepy white-ass cracker'. 'cracker' is a derogatory term for a Southern white. 'white-ass' is another derogatory term. Someone who did not know the meaning of the word 'cracker' reinterpreted this as 'creepy white ass-cracker', 'ass-cracker' meaning gay. I have never heard 'ass-cracker' and I suspect Martin hadn't either. He was using a vocabulary common to his social group.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
All I can say is that my male relatives have been subjected to suspicion by police and citizenry alike, sometimes to the point of violence, for simply being muscular black men.

It is true that black men are frequently mistreated in this way. It is outrageous that this should be the case.

However, I don't think that is what was going on in this case. First, Zimmermann was not certain of Martin's race at the beginning. Secondly, Martin was loitering on a rainy night in a neighborhood where there had been recent break-ins and home invasions. I think that a person of any race would have become an object of suspicion under the circumstances.

Moo

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.
I got in a few fights when I was that age, sure. But I never started any - I never threw the first punch. And that's the factor that makes all the difference in this discussion, ISTM.

Yes, but you don't really think that if I start a fight, I should be killed, do you? However, we are now talking about gun control, I suppose, so I go back to my earlier point, why should Trayvon not have a gun also?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
All I can say is that my male relatives have been subjected to suspicion by police and citizenry alike, sometimes to the point of violence, for simply being muscular black men. Everyone in my family is university educated with very successful careers and no one has a criminal record.

The Trayvon Martin story, legal issues aside, is simply a very scary one for anyone with a black male loved one. Because whether or not Zimmerman was found guilty, Trayvon is dead. It can happen (and does happen) to any black man in America.

My male relative (son) has been stopped by the police and questioned dozens of time. When we lived in the country it was almost every time he tried to go for a walk. After one of these incidents he told me he had noticed a woman watching him from a certain house shortly before the police came so I drove over to politely ask that her, "Why?" It seems that when my son walked by, on the road, in his shorts and running shoes, empty handed -- her dog had barked more than usual. She also told me that a few years earlier she had spotted some men taking lumber from a building site, called the police and stopped a theft. Clearly, a proud crime stopper had been born that day.

One day, when he was sixteen and driving to baseball practice, another would-be policeman followed him in his car, motioning him to pull over, pulling up beside him and grinning. My son turned around and drove home where the man followed him. My son was ashen faced with fear. The driver told a neighbor he had "caught" my son driving without a license. The neighbor said, "He has a license, he's sixteen." The follower said, "Well he doesn't look that old," and drove off.

My white son has been arrested and jailed for loitering. He has been pulled over and arrested for drunk driving (deserved.)He has foolishly run from the police and warning shots were fired. He has been beaten up by gangs and mugged for his wallet -- no one ever caught or charged. Like your relatives he is also college educated, clean cut and conservatively dressed, but not muscular at all. He does now have a record.

I'm not saying racial profiling doesn't exist but I think lots of African Americans are under the impression that white people are given a pass, that every time a policeman, or neighborhood watcher looks at them it's because of their skin color. Police have to use their common sense. Statistics and experience tell them that young men are more likely to commit crimes than old ladies with canes. So, like it or not, they are going to be noticed more by the police.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Rainy nights? Fuck, we made a point of loitering on rainy nights.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, but you don't really think that if I start a fight, I should be killed, do you? However, we are now talking about gun control, I suppose,

We are indeed, because I would say that if you do start a fight then the person you attack has the right to use whatever legal means they have available to defend themselves, and some of those means could indeed result in your death.

quote:
so I go back to my earlier point, why should Trayvon not have a gun also?

The specific reason why Trayvon couldn't have a gun was his age, but speaking generally I'd say that if guns are legal there's no reason why anyone can't carry one if they so desire. However, I would go on to say that using one in a fight you have started simply because the person you attacked is gaining the upper hand can hardly be considered self-defence under any reasonable definition of that term.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, but there are more stages. You start a fight with me, and you are winning, so I reach for my gun, cos I'm scared for my life, but you whip out yours, cos you are also scared. So whoever shoots first gets to claim self-defence, unless witnesses declare something else.

Christ, it shows the disgusting mess which guns create. And knives, of course.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
All I can say is that my male relatives have been subjected to suspicion by police and citizenry alike, sometimes to the point of violence, for simply being muscular black men. Everyone in my family is university educated with very successful careers and no one has a criminal record.

The Trayvon Martin story, legal issues aside, is simply a very scary one for anyone with a black male loved one. Because whether or not Zimmerman was found guilty, Trayvon is dead. It can happen (and does happen) to any black man in America.
My male relative (son) has been stopped by the police and questioned dozens of time. When we lived in the country it was almost every time he tried to go for a walk. After one of these incidents he told me he had noticed a woman watching him from a certain house shortly before the police came so I drove over to politely ask that her, "Why?" It seems that when my son walked by, on the road, in his shorts and running shoes, empty handed -- her dog had barked more than usual. She also told me that a few years earlier she had spotted some men taking lumber from a building site, called the police and stopped a theft. Clearly, a proud crime stopper had been born that day.

One day, when he was sixteen and driving to baseball practice, another would-be policeman followed him in his car, motioning him to pull over, pulling up beside him and grinning. My son turned around and drove home where the man followed him. My son was ashen faced with fear. The driver told a neighbor he had "caught" my son driving without a license. The neighbor said, "He has a license, he's sixteen." The follower said, "Well he doesn't look that old," and drove off.

My white son has been arrested and jailed for loitering. He has been pulled over and arrested for drunk driving (deserved.)He has foolishly run from the police and warning shots were fired. He has been beaten up by gangs and mugged for his wallet -- no one ever caught or charged. Like your relatives he is also college educated, clean cut and conservatively dressed, but not muscular at all. He does now have a record.

I'm not saying racial profiling doesn't exist but I think lots of African Americans are under the impression that white people are given a pass, that every time a policeman, or neighborhood watcher looks at them it's because of their skin color. Police have to use their common sense. Statistics and experience tell them that young men are more likely to commit crimes than old ladies with canes. So, like it or not, they are going to be noticed more by the police.

Your attitude is part of the problem. Racial profiling of young black men is a real problem. One that is backed by data. Look at NYC stop and frisk where white men are stopped less often but when stopped are more likely to have guns/drugs on them than the black men who are stopped. Your kid is 100% irrelevant.

If people in privileged groups can't get over the fact that not everything is about them, we're never going to resolve these issues.

Ask your son, would he trade places with a black boy and then do that DUI over again? Ask yourself too.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Your attitude is part of the problem.

Seems to me that if you're going to say stuff like that, you probably shouldn't go on to say blatantly inflammatory stuff like

quote:
Your kid is 100% irrelevant.

Especially when you then go on to say

quote:
If people in privileged groups can't get over the fact that not everything is about them, we're never going to resolve these issues.

I mean, how you can berate anyone for thinking it's all about them immediately after saying any problems other than the ones you care about are irrelevant is staggering.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Martin thought Zimmermann might be a sexual predator. The idea has arisen because of a misinterpretation of what Martin said on the phone to his girlfriend.

Well 'luckily' Martin is dead so we'll never know exactly what he thought Zimmerman was going to do to him. However, there's no real way to put a positive spin on "creepy ass". Most people make the assumption that when they're being stalked by strangers it's because of malign intent. After all, if they intended something good they wouldn't have to be so furtive. That assumption looks correct in this case.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is true that black men are frequently mistreated in this way. It is outrageous that this should be the case.

However, I don't think that is what was going on in this case. First, Zimmermann was not certain of Martin's race at the beginning. Secondly, Martin was loitering on a rainy night in a neighborhood where there had been recent break-ins and home invasions. I think that a person of any race would have become an object of suspicion under the circumstances.

Not according to the transcript you posted.

quote:
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

That sounds pretty definitive to me. Maybe you think it's pure coincidence that Martin just happened to be the same race as just about everyone else Zimmerman reported to the police.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I notice again 'loitering on a rainy night', what the fuck, have you ever been a kid? Of course, kids loiter on rainy nights, they are the best nights to loiter on.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.
I got in a few fights when I was that age, sure. But I never started any - I never threw the first punch. And that's the factor that makes all the difference in this discussion, ISTM.

While I get the point of the 17 year olds have poor judgment about when to walk away angle of the story, am I the only one who looks at people blankly and answers "no" when asked if I have ever been in a physical fight? That includes two moments when I found myself sitting on the sideline with one or two other teammates while the rest of the team ran out for a big brawl in the middle of heated sporting events. Now in that time, I was only confronted by a creepy neighborhood watch type looking to start something once, and I was asking for that one far more than Martin was (nothing criminal, I was just being a pain in his ass and he decided the best way to stop it was to chase me down and threaten to smash my face in- not fun). So I get that some people are pushed harder than I was. Just to say that this whole societal expectation that at some point a boy will inevitably get into a fight is completely odd to me.

[ 17. July 2013, 14:04: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Your attitude is part of the problem.
Seems to me that if you're going to say stuff like that, you probably shouldn't go on to say blatantly inflammatory stuff like

quote:
Your kid is 100% irrelevant.
Especially when you then go on to say

quote:
If people in privileged groups can't get over the fact that not everything is about them, we're never going to resolve these issues.
I mean, how you can berate anyone for thinking it's all about them immediately after saying any problems other than the ones you care about are irrelevant is staggering.

A white kid who drove drunk, endangering himself and those around him, has nothing to do with racial profiling of innocent black men. Not one single thing.

I don't mean to insult that poster but this is a very common occurrence. A minority says "there is systematic prejudice against my group" which is backed by facts, and a member of the majority says "well let me tell you what happened to ME once." It's bizarre. It's not a problem competition.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Og

I think it's just making explicit the point that following a 17 year old guy in a car might produce unpredictable reactions. I think at 17 I might have walked away; but then I might also have tapped on the window, and asked, 'want a bleeding photo, mate?' But we didn't have guns, crucial point, so we pretty much knew that even if there was a barney, no-one would get killed. Actually, we didn't have knives either.

[ 17. July 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.
I got in a few fights when I was that age, sure. But I never started any - I never threw the first punch. And that's the factor that makes all the difference in this discussion, ISTM.
While I get the point of the 17 year olds have poor judgment about when to walk away angle of the story, am I the only one who looks at people blankly and answers "no" when asked if I have ever been in a physical fight? That includes two moments when I found myself sitting on the sideline with one or two other teammates while the rest of the team ran out for a big brawl in the middle of heated sporting events. Now in that time, I was only confronted by a creepy neighborhood watch type looking to start something once, and I was asking for that one far more than Martin was (nothing criminal, I was just being a pain in his ass and he decided the best way to stop it was to chase me down and threaten to smash my face in- not fun). So I get that some people are pushed harder than I was. Just to say that this whole societal expectation that at some point a boy will inevitably get into a fight is completely odd to me.

No, you're not the only one. I've never been in a fight since I left school, and there it was more being set upon by the occasional idiot than actually "getting into a fight".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

I don't mean to insult that poster but this is a very common occurrence. A minority says "there is systematic prejudice against my group" which is backed by facts, and a member of the majority says "well let me tell you what happened to ME once." It's bizarre. It's not a problem competition.

The converse is that just because there is a well-established prejudice against black people (and if you think that young black men have the same experience interacting with law enforcement as young white men, you are wrong), it does not mean that each and every interaction of a black man with law enforcement involves prejudice.

Let's go back to Zimmerman. He had previously called the cops on suspicious-looking black youths, and a couple of young black men had recently been arrested for burglary in the vicinity. Now he sees Trayvon Martin - another young black man - and calls the police.

Possible explanations:

1. Zimmerman has a prejudice against black people.

2. All the burglary suspects have been young black men, so Zimmerman thinks Martin might be one of them. This isn't prejudice, it's statistics. If we're dealing with a group of acquaintances, and we know that a random two or three are black, in America it's likely that the others are black, too. The US isn't exactly racially integrated.

3. The only people ever walking around Zimmerman's neighborhoods are black. There are plenty of places where most people just don't walk, for any reason.

All of these are possible, given the information I have. 1 is an example of racial prejudice, 2 and 3 are related to the racial separation in the US, but do not involve prejudice.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
All of these are possible, given the information I have. 1 is an example of racial prejudice, 2 and 3 are related to the racial separation in the US, but do not involve prejudice.

I'm pretty sure that "the racial separation in the US" involves prejudice, at least in part.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

I don't mean to insult that poster but this is a very common occurrence. A minority says "there is systematic prejudice against my group" which is backed by facts, and a member of the majority says "well let me tell you what happened to ME once." It's bizarre. It's not a problem competition.
The converse is that just because there is a well-established prejudice against black people (and if you think that young black men have the same experience interacting with law enforcement as young white men, you are wrong), it does not mean that each and every interaction of a black man with law enforcement involves prejudice.

Let's go back to Zimmerman. He had previously called the cops on suspicious-looking black youths, and a couple of young black men had recently been arrested for burglary in the vicinity. Now he sees Trayvon Martin - another young black man - and calls the police.

Possible explanations:

1. Zimmerman has a prejudice against black people.

2. All the burglary suspects have been young black men, so Zimmerman thinks Martin might be one of them. This isn't prejudice, it's statistics. If we're dealing with a group of acquaintances, and we know that a random two or three are black, in America it's likely that the others are black, too. The US isn't exactly racially integrated.

3. The only people ever walking around Zimmerman's neighborhoods are black. There are plenty of places where most people just don't walk, for any reason.

All of these are possible, given the information I have. 1 is an example of racial prejudice, 2 and 3 are related to the racial separation in the US, but do not involve prejudice.

I totally agree. I think you need to read my post, which speaks not of Zimmerman but of the general worry those of us with black male loved ones have that they will be victimized.

I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant. The history of America is intimately wrapped up and entwined with anti-black racism.

And that's why we can't talk reasonably about this topic. Because one side wants to be heard, and the other side refuses to listen, or responds immediately with "oh you're just exaggerating."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Your attitude is part of the problem.
Seems to me that if you're going to say stuff like that, you probably shouldn't go on to say blatantly inflammatory stuff like

quote:
Your kid is 100% irrelevant.
Especially when you then go on to say

quote:
If people in privileged groups can't get over the fact that not everything is about them, we're never going to resolve these issues.
I mean, how you can berate anyone for thinking it's all about them immediately after saying any problems other than the ones you care about are irrelevant is staggering.

But Twilight's child is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps not the most gentle phrasing, but it is not incorrect. If one counter example is all that is necessary, there are no problems anywhere. The statistical preponderance is that black people are more likely to receive undue attention from the police and "concerned citizens."
One might argue this case is not about prejudice, but to throw an irrelevant anecdote is not the proof needed to demonstrate this.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events.

It's no worse than insisting that racism has to have been at the heart of certain events without looking at the facts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But no better and certainly no more helpful.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I notice again 'loitering on a rainy night', what the fuck, have you ever been a kid? Of course, kids loiter on rainy nights, they are the best nights to loiter on.

People talking on their cell phones walk into parking meters and mailboxes and trees and often look like they`re wandering aimlessly ... unless they`re standing aimlessly. When I walk through my neighbourhood, I can`t help noticing what people have in their yards, or what they`re doing at home if the curtains or blinds are open. And 7 pm on the night of the All-Star game isn't exactly the best time to carry out a burglary. These ordinary, common behaviours apparently become signs of potential criminality if the person doing them is young, male and black.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events.
It's no worse than insisting that racism has to have been at the heart of certain events without looking at the facts.

Of course it's worse. Members of the majority group saying minorities are exaggerating claims of abuse and discrimination? In your view, that is as bad as black people believing themselves to be the victims of frequent racism?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I didn't have any interest in this story, or even know where it happened, until I went to preach at a church in Deland, Florida this past weekend.

The congregation seemed to have a huge interest in the story on Sunday morning, and when I asked why I realized that Sanford is the neighboring community. The church members had a very definite opinion. Most of them felt that the whole thing was a creation of the national media.

When I went to read up on the story online most of the articles seemed pretty biased one way or the other. I thought the Wikipedia article seemed to be the least biased and most informative.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events.
It's no worse than insisting that racism has to have been at the heart of certain events without looking at the facts.
Of course it's worse. Members of the majority group saying minorities are exaggerating claims of abuse and discrimination? In your view, that is as bad as black people believing themselves to be the victims of frequent racism?

I think many of us wear rose tinted glasses such that until we SEE institutional racism, it's hard to believe. I am a white woman and because of that privilege, I thought I believed what I was hearing from African-Americans. I realized I hadn't really when I saw it, because I shouldn't have been as shocked as I was. The idea that a professional man obviously about his business doing very good work, and dressed in a full suit to boot, should expect that if he interacted with the police he had very good reason to worry blew my mind. This guy gave off every signal I could think of that said he was anything but trouble, but seeing the way he and his (white) co-workers reacted*, it was clear that his worry was not paranoia.

*They went to go talk to the police themselves so that he wouldn't have to. Of course the police left completely satisfied soon after.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Of course it's worse. Members of the majority group saying minorities are exaggerating claims of abuse and discrimination? In your view, that is as bad as black people believing themselves to be the victims of frequent racism?

So what, the second anybody says that any event was racist that makes it True and nobody else can ever argue against them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Arguing that this case isn't about racism is not what everyone is doing.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Of course it's worse. Members of the majority group saying minorities are exaggerating claims of abuse and discrimination? In your view, that is as bad as black people believing themselves to be the victims of frequent racism?
So what, the second anybody says that any event was racist that makes it True and nobody else can ever argue against them?

No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.

But of the two, the second is objectively worse than the first since saying that minorities exagerrate and/or lie, in itself, perpetuates racist prejudice.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... 2. All the burglary suspects have been young black men, so Zimmerman thinks Martin might be one of them. This isn't prejudice, it's statistics. ... The US isn't exactly racially integrated. ... 2 and 3 are related to the racial separation in the US, but do not involve prejudice.

I don`t know what definition of prejudice you are using, but what you have described in 2 is exactly what racial profiling is. In the USA, it is unconstitutional for law enforcement to use only race as probable cause to detain or investigate someone. Recently, the Maricopa County Sherriff`s Office was slammed down because their officers deliberately followed vehicles with Hispanic drivers and passengers to check for immigration violations. The court specifically said that in an area where there are many citizens of Hispanic appearance (and regardless of how many Hispanics violate immigration laws), the police do not have probable cause to question a particular individual about their immigration status solely on the basis of being Hispanic in Arizona. The same applies to the ``crime`` of driving while black or travelling by air while Muslim.

In his recent speech to the NAACP, Attorney General Eric Holder related an anecdote about being stopped by the police. It happened in Georgetown. He was running because he was late for a movie. He was a federal prosecutor at the time. I have no doubt that if he had said something like, "Do you have any idea who I am?", he`d probably be dead like Trayvon Martin.

The only statistic that should matter is that the vast majority of black Americans are law-abiding citizens, as are American Muslims, Sikhs, Asians, Latinos and white folks. An individual`s right to be presumed innocent and to be free from harassment is not altered by statistics about other people. Assuming someone is up to no good because they`re the wrong race in the wrong place is prejudice.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Did people just skim over Twilight's post? That wasn't 'one' counter-example. That was setting out a continued history of what kept happening.

Also: Dear Twilight, what the fuck is wrong with your country?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Did people just skim over Twilight's post? That wasn't 'one' counter-example. That was setting out a continued history of what kept happening.

It is still one person. Statistically insignificant in this discussion.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Did people just skim over Twilight's post? That wasn't 'one' counter-example. That was setting out a continued history of what kept happening.

We cannot know what it means out of context. There could be all kinds of reasons that person was being harassed that most white teenagers as a group are not. In other words, as a stand alone story, it has all the classic issues of an anecdote.

[ 17. July 2013, 15:51: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.

Is any ascribing all injustice to racism? Most are discussing one particular incident, the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.
Is any ascribing all injustice to racism? Most are discussing one particular incident, the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.

seekingsister said:

quote:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant.

MtM then pointed out that some people will take the opposite stance.

It was those two positions, rather than the thread as a whole that I was commenting on.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know what you were like when you were 17, but I would have laughed in your face.
I got in a few fights when I was that age, sure. But I never started any - I never threw the first punch. And that's the factor that makes all the difference in this discussion, ISTM.

I don't see why. SYG laws allow you to throw the first punch (or, better, bullet) if you feel threatened.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't mean to insult that poster but this is a very common occurrence. A minority says "there is systematic prejudice against my group" which is backed by facts, and a member of the majority says "well let me tell you what happened to ME once." It's bizarre. It's not a problem competition.

This.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant. The history of America is intimately wrapped up and entwined with anti-black racism.

And that's why we can't talk reasonably about this topic. Because one side wants to be heard, and the other side refuses to listen, or responds immediately with "oh you're just exaggerating."

Double

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Of course it's worse. Members of the majority group saying minorities are exaggerating claims of abuse and discrimination? In your view, that is as bad as black people believing themselves to be the victims of frequent racism?
So what, the second anybody says that any event was racist that makes it True and nobody else can ever argue against them?

In my limited experience of 30 years as a black American, people rarely call things racist unless we actually think they are. So maybe you should try to see it from the perspective of the person who feels victimized, rather than just assuming they're using the "race card."

And what's particularly frustrating is that the conversation ends up going away from the black person who is on the news feeling victimized, to the white audience who is sitting at home thinking "well I'M not racist, why is this guy insinuating that I'm racist?" This is where we are in this thread, essentially. That was my point to the other poster - this story isn't about YOU. It's about America and its institutions and its history, and more directly about Martin and Zimmerman. Not about all white people or all Latinos or whatever.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

seekingsister

Very good points. I think there is so much guilt around, and one way to deal with it, is to find someone else to blame.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see why. SYG laws allow you to throw the first punch (or, better, bullet) if you feel threatened.

Really? I thought it was all about not requiring people to run away if attacked (and thus negating any "you could have run away" gambit by the prosecution in any subsequent trial), rather than allowing people to preemptively escalate a situation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see why. SYG laws allow you to throw the first punch (or, better, bullet) if you feel threatened.
Really? I thought it was all about not requiring people to run away if attacked (and thus negating any "you could have run away" gambit by the prosecution in any subsequent trial), rather than allowing people to preemptively escalate a situation.

No. It's about not requiring people to run away if they feel threatened.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Did people just skim over Twilight's post? That wasn't 'one' counter-example. That was setting out a continued history of what kept happening.
We cannot know what it means out of context. There could be all kinds of reasons that person was being harassed that most white teenagers as a group are not. In other words, as a stand alone story, it has all the classic issues of an anecdote.

Of course it was anecdotal, it was in response to Seekingsister's anecdotal post about her male relatives:

Seekingsister:

quote:
All I can say is that my male relatives have been subjected to suspicion by police and citizenry alike,

I never intended to say that my son represented the entire white population of the United States but simply to demonstrate that, seen from within your own family, people of all races have problems and that sometimes, simply being a young male out walking in an area where most people are in cars, is of more interest to the police than race.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Agreeing with Seekingsister's posts on this thread.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.
Is any ascribing all injustice to racism? Most are discussing one particular incident, the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
seekingsister said:

quote:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant.
MtM then pointed out that some people will take the opposite stance.

It was those two positions, rather than the thread as a whole that I was commenting on.

Seekingsister is also not talking about "all injustice", just cases where "something happens pointing towards prejudice". You then argue that it's wrong to suspect prejudice in cases where there's reason to suspect prejudice. [Confused]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.
Is any ascribing all injustice to racism? Most are discussing one particular incident, the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
seekingsister said:

quote:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant.
MtM then pointed out that some people will take the opposite stance.

It was those two positions, rather than the thread as a whole that I was commenting on.
Seekingsister is also not talking about "all injustice", just cases where "something happens pointing towards prejudice". You then argue that it's wrong to suspect prejudice in cases where there's reason to suspect prejudice.

No, if anything, I said the opposite. I'm not sure how you can be misreading that.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
No. I think seekingsister is saying that both are wrong: ascribing all injustice to racism and ascribing no injustice to racism.
Is any ascribing all injustice to racism? Most are discussing one particular incident, the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
seekingsister said:

quote:
I must admit I find it fascinating how much energy some people put into finding any answer other than racism to certain events. Trayvon notwithstanding, anytime something happens pointing towards prejudice, an army of pundits and commenters will shout until blue in the face that racism isn't relevant.
MtM then pointed out that some people will take the opposite stance.

It was those two positions, rather than the thread as a whole that I was commenting on.
Seekingsister is also not talking about "all injustice", just cases where "something happens pointing towards prejudice". You then argue that it's wrong to suspect prejudice in cases where there's reason to suspect prejudice.

I was supporting seekingsister in her view that it is *worse* to say that minorities exaggerate than it is to over-ascribe things to racism, if that were even possible.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I never intended to say that my son represented the entire white population of the United States but simply to demonstrate that, seen from within your own family, people of all races have problems and that sometimes, simply being a young male out walking in an area where most people are in cars, is of more interest to the police than race.

Sure, everybody's got problems. But black and brown people are statistically a lot more likely to have certain problems simply because of the ingrained and institutional racial prejudice in this country, simply because they are black and brown. White people have problems. But we don't have problems just because we're white.

And yes, sometimes in some places just being young and male makes people think you might be up to no good. Sometimes race isn't a factor. But all too often it is. Black and brown men are statistically a lot more likely than white men to be viewed as potential trouble-makers. Check out the data on the NYPD stop-and-frisk policy.

Your anecdotes about your son are irrelevant don't stack up against those data, and they don't stack up against all the anecdotes other white people can tell about their interactions about police. For instance, the story told by the white guy who, when he was 23, locked his keys in his car and was trying to break into it -- he was helped by a cop, not questioned about what he was doing (see towards the end of the video clip here). Or me -- I have been variously brusque, snotty and rude to cops who pulled me over, and once I flat-out lost my temper and ranted at a cop, and never once did any of them do anything but stand there looking bored, waiting for me to get over myself. No black man wanting to stay out of jail dares treat a cop like that.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And what's particularly frustrating is that the conversation ends up going away from the black person who is on the news feeling victimized, to the white audience who is sitting at home thinking "well I'M not racist, why is this guy insinuating that I'm racist?" This is where we are in this thread, essentially. That was my point to the other poster - this story isn't about YOU. It's about America and its institutions and its history, and more directly about Martin and Zimmerman. Not about all white people or all Latinos or whatever.

The thing is, communicating with that white audience is crucial. Activists would do well to think about how they can talk about racism in ways that don't make a lot of white people feel like they've just been accused of being evil.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see why. SYG laws allow you to throw the first punch (or, better, bullet) if you feel threatened.
Really? I thought it was all about not requiring people to run away if attacked (and thus negating any "you could have run away" gambit by the prosecution in any subsequent trial), rather than allowing people to preemptively escalate a situation.

That's very odd. Running away de-escalates. Not running away escalates. You cannot have a your ground situation without being prepared to do that and respond with force by definition.

What is the correct response for school children in Florida to the question of what to do if you're bullied? Do the schools allow you to stand your ground and punch or otherwise stop the other child from bullying? In the real world of children, a strategic punch in the nose (and then running) can be a reasonable response, but that's by far in the minority of situations.

On another question, at what age can you get a gun and carry it concealed legally?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing is, communicating with that white audience is crucial. Activists would do well to think about how they can talk about racism in ways that don't make a lot of white people feel like they've just been accused of being evil.

There is a balance though. To hard and you alienate, too soft and the message is weakened. I try to walk that line and it is difficult even here, with most posters sympathising.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is a balance though. Too hard and you alienate, too soft and the message is weakened.

In this case "too hard" seems to include acknowledging racism exists. I'm not sure what "too soft" would look like if that's the "too hard" boundary.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing is, communicating with that white audience is crucial. Activists would do well to think about how they can talk about racism in ways that don't make a lot of white people feel like they've just been accused of being evil.
There is a balance though. To hard and you alienate, too soft and the message is weakened. I try to walk that line and it is difficult even here, with most posters sympathising.

Still, there's something really ironic about the necessity of making white people comfortable with opposition to racism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Still, there's something really ironic about the necessity of making white people comfortable with opposition to racism.

True, but it's a matter of efficacy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is a balance though. Too hard and you alienate, too soft and the message is weakened.
In this case "too hard" seems to include acknowledging racism exists. I'm not sure what "too soft" would look like if that's the "too hard" boundary.

With some audiences, there is only the one.
Damn, and this thread has been depressing enough already.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is no evidence that Martin thought Zimmermann might be a sexual predator. The idea has arisen because of a misinterpretation of what Martin said on the phone to his girlfriend.
Well 'luckily' Martin is dead so we'll never know exactly what he thought Zimmerman was going to do to him. However, there's no real way to put a positive spin on "creepy ass". Most people make the assumption that when they're being stalked by strangers it's because of malign intent.

I agree. I was just making the minor point that 'creepy white-ass cracker' strikes me as a standard racial insult with no sexual overtones. Note that the phrase is not 'creepy ass cracker' but creepy white-ass cracker.

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is true that black men are frequently mistreated in this way. It is outrageous that this should be the case.

However, I don't think that is what was going on in this case. First, Zimmermann was not certain of Martin's race at the beginning. Secondly, Martin was loitering on a rainy night in a neighborhood where there had been recent break-ins and home invasions. I think that a person of any race would have become an object of suspicion under the circumstances.
Not according to the transcript you posted.

quote:
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.
That sounds pretty definitive to me. Maybe you think it's pure coincidence that Martin just happened to be the same race as just about everyone else Zimmerman reported to the police.

You omitted the fact that Zimmermann first said. "I'm not sure."

Whether the Zimmermann was racist in reporting blacks would depend on whether there was evidence that they had, in fact, committed crimes or possessed burglar tools. This neighborhood was dealing with a lot of burglaries and home invasions. I know that there were many blacks living there; I don't know what percentage of the population they were.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Still, there's something really ironic about the necessity of making white people comfortable with opposition to racism.

No more ironic than the necessity of making straight people comfortable with opposition to anti-homosexual bigotry, or the necessity of making men comfortable with opposition to sexism.

I think it's very interesting that proponents of changing our laws so same-sex couples can marry changed their tactics and stopped talking about so much about insisting on rights and started talking more about how gay people are just like everyone else and only want what everyone else wants. It's a subtle shift, from "right to marry" to "marriage equality," but it's been effective.

The feminist slogan that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle had its time and place, but I have never, ever made any headway in convincing a man that sexism is still deeply ingrained in American culture by accusing him of being a sexist, even when it's plain that he is. Some people are reached by confrontational approaches, but their numbers are dwarfed by the numbers of people who are reached in other ways.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Note that the phrase is not 'creepy ass cracker' but creepy white-ass cracker.

Nope. It's either "creepy, white, kill-my-neighbors cracker" or "creepy-ass cracker".

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Not according to the transcript you posted.

quote:
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.
You omitted the fact that Zimmermann first said. "I'm not sure."

No, the transcript from a link you provided omitted that "fact". If you consider the transcript to be inaccurate, why did you post it?

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Whether the Zimmermann was racist in reporting blacks would depend on whether there was evidence that they had, in fact, committed crimes or possessed burglar tools.

Well, given that neither was true in Martin's case, I'm willing to guess that Zimmerman's ability to determine such things was no better than random luck. Possibly worse.

And I'm pretty sure that's a non-sequitur. You're essentially arguing that if you assume every black man is a criminal, it's only racism in the specific cases where you're wrong.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

You're right about the transcript. I have seen one containing the words, 'I'm not sure' but I don't know where to find it and I don't know which is accurate.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Like Ruth and others here, I know what it's like to see (white) people cringe when the subject of racism comes up, even from this plaster-pale white woman. There's a wide-spread, defensive guilt consciousness -- or something -- that seems to pop up immediately.

I have found it more effective to talk about white privilege -- Things I Never Have To Think About Because I'm White:

1. I never have to wonder if that apartment I wanted to rent had really "just been rented."

2. I never have to wonder whether that job rejection or turn-down for promotion was due to the color of my skin.

3. When someone walking toward me on the street suddenly crosses to the other side mid-block, or shifts her purse away from me, it never crosses my mind that it might be due to my race.

4. It never occurs to me to wonder why a clerk or wait-staff are attending to me when I only just came in, while that other party has been waiting long enough for their kid to turn cranky.

5. I feel no need to instruct my teenage son never to wear a hoodie, be scrupulously polite to police officers regardless of circumstances, and to keep his hands out of his pockets while in stores.

I could go on, but there's a sample.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Prejudice undoubtedly exists. But it's not necessarily helpful to ascribe everything to prejudice. I once heard/read about a gay guy whose response to every negative interaction was "it's because I'm gay isn't it" when in fact much of it was because he was an insufferable jerk that people couldn't stand to be around.

In THIS particular case, there is at the very least something fishy going on with Zimmerman consistently reporting blacks to police. I still think it's an assumption to say that this was racist behaviour without knowing how many non-black folk he gave a free pass to, but is at least a reasonable assumption.

I don't think it alters the verdict in the trial, because fundamentally it is still not a crime to watch people you suspect of loitering, even if you're only suspecting black people and doing it without decent evidence. That makes you a jerk, but not in itself a criminal.

What it does raise, though, are lots of questions about the people roaming American streets claiming to keep law and order. And the questions aren't necessarily just about the unofficial guys like Zimmerman. The movie 'Crash' raised lots of the same issues a few years back, in a fictional setting but one that was clearly meant to be recognisable to American viewers.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That makes you a jerk, but not in itself a criminal.

Insert your own joke about your favorite sparring partner on the ship sleeping better tonight.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Prejudice undoubtedly exists. But it's not necessarily helpful to ascribe everything to prejudice.

I agree, but I don't see anyone here doing that. I do see people trying to minimize the amount of racism, both overt & covert, both individual & institutional, which exists in this society.

Frankly, I wish very much that this country had gone through some kind of reconciliation process (a la South Africa -- however incomplete, imperfect, and unfinished such a process may be) in the aftermath of emancipation. First, some sort of formal reconciliation process between North and South; and second, some sort of reconciliation between former slaves and former slave-owners; and third, some sort of reconciliation between Native Americans and all the "boat people" who have settled here on land that was not theirs.

Once we turned into the United States, we greeted every next wave of newcomers (those we didn't kidnap and drag here against their will) with varying degrees of hostility, depending on how closely they resembled and/or spoke like and/or worshipped like the privileged elite.

I've come to believe that previous unresolved hostility against Some Other somehow "preps" those who harbor it for further hostility, creating greater and greater social distances between groups -- until the distance becomes great enough that we are no longer in the position of carrying such abuse out personally, nor are we any longer witnessing manifestations of that abuse, and we become "blind" to its existence, and capable of assuming that, since we no longer "do" it or "see" it personally, it must therefore no longer exist.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I once heard/read about a gay guy whose response to every negative interaction was "it's because I'm gay isn't it" when in fact much of it was because he was an insufferable jerk that people couldn't stand to be around.

Sure. No group, with or without privilege, has a monopoly on, or is immune to producing, jerks. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the fact that guy was maybe a bit paranoid about his "gayness" didn't mean he never ran into actual prejudice on the basis of his sexual orientation.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

In THIS particular case, there is at the very least something fishy going on with Zimmerman consistently reporting blacks to police. I still think it's an assumption to say that this was racist behaviour without knowing how many non-black folk he gave a free pass to, but is at least a reasonable assumption.

I dunno, orfeo; I have a hard time seeing this as a statistical calculation based on "passes" vs. "calls." If you see yourself as a guardian of public safety, and somehow every single one of the perceived threats you phone the police about is black, I think there's a preponderance of evidence in favor of racism.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What it does raise, though, are lots of questions about the people roaming American streets claiming to keep law and order. And the questions aren't necessarily just about the unofficial guys like Zimmerman. The movie 'Crash' raised lots of the same issues a few years back, in a fictional setting but one that was clearly meant to be recognisable to American viewers.

Not familiar with the movie, but I agree: we really have to start asking questions about why the hell so many US citizens feel the need to arm themselves.

I've lived in high-crime areas. I've lived through two violent attacks, one involving a gun. Both times I talked my assailant out of killing me, and I can't begin to imagine feeling "safer" or more protected through having a gun in my home, far less so by lugging one around with me.

Posted by Tea (# 16619) on :

“The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight.”

Read the rest of Charles Blow’s "System failed Trayvon Martin; now what to tell my boys?"

But even if we assume – purely for the sake of argument - that Zimmerman did have legitimate suspicions, his conduct still seems to have been reckless and needlessly aggressive. A blog comment (which, alas, I have not been able to find again) asked a good question: why couldn’t Zimmerman have approached Martin and said in a firm but friendly tone of voice something along the lines of “Hi, my name’s George Zimmerman and I’m with the neighborhood watch. I don’t think we’ve met.”?

Issuing this kind of non-pugnacious challenge could cause somebody who is considering criminal activity to stop and think again.* It’s also less likely to result in a violent confrontation.

*This isn’t just liberal wishful thinking. Wal-Mart has somebody “greet” you as you enter the store not for reasons of Arkansas folksiness, but on account of this “recognition” acting as a proven deterrent to shoplifters.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
why couldn’t Zimmerman have approached Martin and said in a firm but friendly tone of voice something along the lines of “Hi, my name’s George Zimmerman and I’m with the neighborhood watch. I don’t think we’ve met.”?

Maybe he was planning to but, according to what I understand of his account, Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him. If that is what really happened then the chance of Zimmerman being able to start a conversation would be slim.

I don't have a problem with someone owning guns or carrying them on their own time. However, it seems a neighborhood watch committee should be just that and would guess that most committees would not want someone carrying a gun on duty because of potential liability for the property owners. I don't recall if we had neighborhood watch in the two neighborhoods we lived in before this one or if we have one where we live now. If someone is going to get shot in my neighborhood it would be preferable that the shooter do it on their own account and not as a representative of an organization of which I'm merely a dues paying member.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
“The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight.”

Read the rest of Charles Blow’s "System failed Trayvon Martin; now what to tell my boys?"

But even if we assume – purely for the sake of argument - that Zimmerman did have legitimate suspicions, his conduct still seems to have been reckless and needlessly aggressive. A blog comment (which, alas, I have not been able to find again) asked a good question: why couldn’t Zimmerman have approached Martin and said in a firm but friendly tone of voice something along the lines of “Hi, my name’s George Zimmerman and I’m with the neighborhood watch. I don’t think we’ve met.”?

Issuing this kind of non-pugnacious challenge could cause somebody who is considering criminal activity to stop and think again.* It’s also less likely to result in a violent confrontation.

*This isn’t just liberal wishful thinking. Wal-Mart has somebody “greet” you as you enter the store not for reasons of Arkansas folksiness, but on account of this “recognition” acting as a proven deterrent to shoplifters.

Yes, I've seen that suggestion somewhere, about neighbourhood watch being more friendly, and one reply was that it was best not to do that as it might excite confrontation! That would be comical, if it wasn't all so horrible and sad.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Maybe he was planning to but, according to what I understand of his account, Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him.

That would be what happened according to his account wouldn't it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sure. No group, with or without privilege, has a monopoly on, or is immune to producing, jerks. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the fact that guy was maybe a bit paranoid about his "gayness" didn't mean he never ran into actual prejudice on the basis of his sexual orientation.

Trouble is, you end up creating a "boy who cried wolf" situation, which works against getting the appropriate response when prejudice actually has occurred.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Last night, I was flicking through some of the right-wing stuff on the internet, which basically is lionizing Zimmerman as a hero, for standing up to street punks. It's quite weird stuff - 'I'm locked and loaded, with my assault rifle, ready for you, bro!', and so on. 'Don't come to Florida, unless you accept my right to blow you away, if you sniff in my direction'.

It's all fantasy really, but I suppose, the chilling thing is, that fantasy does sometimes dictate public moral positions and even legal positions. Well, I wrote 'sometimes', but maybe fantasy is more influential than that. Quite depressing really; I don't know how one gets out from that position. Sure, you can argue against it, but fantasy is notoriously immune to reason, and even to emotion.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite depressing really;

You got that right. People who would love nothing more than an excuse to shoot someone else - the old "go ahead punk, make my day" thing - cannot be right in the head.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The jury's decision to acquit was, IMO, correct, given the paucity of the evidence and the fact that of the two eye witnesses to the incident, one was dead and the other the defendant. The 'Stand your Ground Law', OTOH...
It's pretty indubitable that Zimmerman was defending himself in a fight he picked. You might want to consider lowering your standards for "beyond reasonable doubt."

I'm sure you'll be delighted with the prosecution thus being able to lower their standard of proof should you be unfortunate enough to find yourself on the end of an unjust accusation...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
why couldn’t Zimmerman have approached Martin and said in a firm but friendly tone of voice something along the lines of “Hi, my name’s George Zimmerman and I’m with the neighborhood watch. I don’t think we’ve met.”?
Maybe he was planning to but, according to what I understand of his account, Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him. If that is what really happened then the chance of Zimmerman being able to start a conversation would be slim.

I'm sorry, but given the way Zimmerman was talking to the police, I have a hard time buying that.

I'm not trying to establish guilt or innocence of Zimmerman in this post, but it does raise some serious questions for me about semi-official 'neighbourhood watches' who didn't receive the proper training on how to approach someone or how to de-escalate a situation.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Maybe he was planning to but, according to what I understand of his account, Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him.
That would be what happened according to his account wouldn't it?

Yes, just like my sentence said. It appears to be a reasonable explanation because it seems more likely that one would have to be surprised to have the kinds of injuries that Zimmerman had.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
why couldn’t Zimmerman have approached Martin and said in a firm but friendly tone of voice something along the lines of “Hi, my name’s George Zimmerman and I’m with the neighborhood watch. I don’t think we’ve met.”?
Maybe he was planning to but, according to what I understand of his account, Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked him. If that is what really happened then the chance of Zimmerman being able to start a conversation would be slim.
I'm sorry, but given the way Zimmerman was talking to the police, I have a hard time buying that.

Given Zimmerman's injuries and that the police couldn't come up with evidence to refute his side of the story, it seems the most plausible explanation.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Zimmerman's narrative is the only one available, since the prosecution attempt to construct a different one was feeble. And of course, the person whose narrative might differ from Zimmerman's - lies in the morgue. Case closed. But still for me, Zimmerman's story has some bad smells. But if you kill the key witness, hey presto, you done got the golden casket, although maybe not so enviable now.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Rachel Jeantel's testimony was that there was a verbal exchange between Martin and Zimmerman before the fight started: Martin said "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman said "what are you doing around here?"

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Zimmerman's narrative is the only one available, since the prosecution attempt to construct a different one was feeble. And of course, the person whose narrative might differ from Zimmerman's - lies in the morgue. Case closed. But still for me, Zimmerman's story has some bad smells. But if you kill the key witness, hey presto, you done got the golden casket, although maybe not so enviable now.

Like I said earlier, neighborhood watch should mean just that. Watch. Either that or change the signs from "Neighborhood Watch" to "Neighborhood Vigilantes". Anyone can keep an eye on things with virtually no training needed.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: Anyone can keep an eye on things with virtually no training needed.

I think you'd be surprised.

I'm sure that 'keeping an eye on things' in a neighbourhood, especially a neighbourhood where things happen from time to time, requires a surprising amount of people knowledge.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Porridge:

quote:
Not familiar with the movie...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Minority Report yet.

Of course, the whole point of THAT film was that you couldn't tell whether anyone was going to commit a crime until they actually did it...

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mere Nick: Anyone can keep an eye on things with virtually no training needed.
I think you'd be surprised.

I'm sure that 'keeping an eye on things' in a neighbourhood, especially a neighbourhood where things happen from time to time, requires a surprising amount of people knowledge.

Could be. If I was on a watch I'd probably be doing little more than seeing if someone was walking on the street or walking in a yard close to a house and acting like they were checking things out. That sort of thing. I don't know what else I could do.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

The discussion has largely focused on what was in Zimmerman's mind in this confrontation. I think more about what was in Martin's mind? Isn't it reasonable to guess that he was in a state of, at least irritation and more likely rage about this "cracker" who was bugging him? Certainly we see this same rage in the rally crowds demanding justice that has been denied because of racial inequality.

We will probably see more examples of black rage resulting in tragic events like this and can anticipate the same from the white rage sense of unfairness.

I think the facts brought out in the trial regarding the testimony of Jeanteal and the Medical opinion regarding Zimmerman's injuries prove that Martin "got into Zimmerman's face" literally and physically.

How can we bring about a leveling down of the anger we bring our children into?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Stop killing them?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Given Zimmerman's injuries and that the police couldn't come up with evidence to refute his side of the story, it seems the most plausible explanation.

Blogger Amanda Marcotte on being followed by guys in car and George Zimmerman's injuries.

quote:
I’ve been thinking about it a lot, because as a woman, being followed by creepy dudes who clearly have bad intentions in their cars while I’m out walking and minding my own business is something I’ve experienced probably a dozen times in my life. Unsurprisingly, Rachel Jeantel — who was on the phone with Martin when Zimmerman began to follow him — had the threat of rape pop into her head and made a crack about it to Martin before telling him to run. A lot of scary things go through your head when this happens to you: You worry that if he catches up to you, he’ll overpower you. You worry that you won’t be able to fight him off. You worry about how violent he intends to get with you.

But you know what I never worried about? That if I defended myself, he would have an excuse to shoot me dead and that cops would shrug it off and not bother to contact my family.

I never worried that if he caught up with me, any hitting or kicking to get away would be used as evidence that he was in his rights to murder me.

Why do so many people take Zimmerman's obviously self-serving narrative at face value?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Reading that blog, it strikes me how insane this incident is. A black kid is killed for fighting back against some weirdo who was following him. Eh?

I suppose people want to accept Zimmerman's account, because it accords with their own insane view of reality, or their fantasy view of reality, is perhaps a better way of putting it.

Why do so many people live in a fantasy-type reality? Hmm. Scratches head.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why do so many people take Zimmerman's obviously self-serving narrative at face value?

This

is a very important question, especially in light of the fact that it's (A) the only narrative available, (B) was a defense construct rather than testified to by Zimmerman himself, and (C) has holes in it you could drive a breadtruck through if so inclined, and here I am thinking particularly about the bit where Martin, astride Zimmerman and while apparently punching him and banging his head on the walkway, nevertheless manages (apparently with some third or fourth hand he happened to have available) to get a grip on Zimmerman's gun.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

crossposted, was a reply to Croesus:
It's a hell of a lot more comfortable innit? If those people who are different from us are right to ask for change, if they're right that they're being treated differently, then maybe we need to stir ourselves. Maybe we need to worry about standing up for people. Heck, maybe we even need to change our own behavior. Eh, nope. My safely privileged self isn't being harassed, so they clearly aren't either. Silly people!

[ 18. July 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Gwai

Very good points. Yes, people want to be reassured that their view of reality is safe and secure, and will not be disturbed. Thus when Fox News describes Martin's clothes as 'thug clothes', that is reassuring to some people. Now we know where we are; Martin wears thug clothes, he is a thug, and basically, if thugs get killed, that is good. Why are some people objecting? Oh, I suppose they are also thugs.

I heard someone else describe Martin as a race warrior, again, this is reassuringly frightening, and fits into a certain world-view.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: Could be. If I was on a watch I'd probably be doing little more than seeing if someone was walking on the street or walking in a yard close to a house and acting like they were checking things out. That sort of thing. I don't know what else I could do.

We have neighbourhood watches in the Netherlands, especially in rougher neighbourhoods of cities like Rotterdam (I've lived in such a neighbourhood). They are not as pseudo-official as in this case in Florida: in the Netherlands they have a uniform, but they have less attributions than the police. And they don't carry a weapon of course.

'Keeping an eye on things' entails much more than you'd suspect. It means dealing in a relaxed way with a youth who throws a candy paper on the ground in front of you, just to provoke you. It means understanding when two people are just having a discussion in loud voices over the football game, or when it's a real fight and you have to call back-up. It means being able to talk in an authorative but relaxed voice with the youth with mopeds at the edge of the street who are becoming a little too loud and threatening...

You might say that if you're just 'keeping an eye on things' you wouldn't have to do these things. But that's an illusion. By 'keeping an eye on things' you are already a part of what happens on the street. People know that you're the one who's keeping an eye on things, and will react to that in various ways. You'll have to be able to deal with that.

Being able to discern between when there is nothing wrong or when something is happening, being able to talk with people, and above all being able to keep a cool head... all these things are vital to be a neighbourhood watch.

In the Netherlands, these people are thoroughly selected, trained and accompanied. Based on what I read from his calls to the police, Mr. Zimmerman would never be accepted for this position in my country.

And that's a good thing. I don't understand why you would content yourself with second best. And dangerous second best at that.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why do so many people take Zimmerman's obviously self-serving narrative at face value?

Because of his injuries, the cops couldn't refute his story, what ever the witnesses have to say, and Trayvon isn't around to give his side of it.

I wasn't there. Were you? The jury knows more about it than you or I ever will and you see how they voted. I'm deferring to the most knowledgeable.

The take away for me on this is, if your neighborhood is going to have a watch, you might consider everyone is clear on just what is meant.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I wasn't there. Were you? The jury knows more about it than you or I ever will and you see how they voted. I'm deferring to the most knowledgeable.

Except the jury wasn't voting on whether or not Zimmerman's story was indisputably true, just whether it introduced reasonable doubt. His story seems designed (and I use that word deliberately) for that sole purpose. To reverse a quote from A Man For All Seasons "a court must construe according to the law but the world can construe according to its wits."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Trayvon Martin's parents were on Good Morning America saying that they think people have forgotten that he acted like a scared kid. That's not really the sense I have from posters here (although it certainly describes some of the "race warrior" type comments in other places.)

Their thought process seems to be "Trayvon was a scared kid, therefore it was all George Zimmerman's fault." Unfortunately, that doesn't follow - either logically, legally or even morally, although it is a natural response for a parent to have.

From a legal point of view, it is pretty clear to me that there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt for the circumstances surrounding Trayvon Martin's death.

This is not the same as "taking Zimmerman's story at face value", but I can't demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it is wrong. Zimmerman's story is consistent with Martin acting like a scared kid - launching a preemptive attack on Zimmerman is entirely consistent with Martin being scared, hopped up on testosterone and prickly about his manly status, in the way of many teenagers. You might even stretch Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law to say that he felt an imminent threat sufficient to call a preemptive attack "self-defense".

And in this latter case, no crime has been committed. Zimmerman getting out of his car and looking for Martin is legal behavior. Martin, in reasonable fear for his safety, attacks Zimmerman, which would be legal self-defense, and then Zimmerman, in reasonable fear for his life, shoots and kills Martin.

It seems odd that you can have a dead body on the floor, but no crime, but the wording of Florida's law seems to make it easy for a misunderstanding to escalate into a death without any crimes taking place.

[ 18. July 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

LeRoc

Yes, second best, and armed second best. There's the rub. Having a clown as a neighbourhood watch person is one thing; having an armed clown is something else.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: There's the rub. Having a clown as a neighbourhood watch person is one thing; having an armed clown is something else.

Having an armed clown as a neighbourhood watch. With no structure at all to control or monitor him. And having laws that leave all benefit of the doubt with the guy with the gun.

'Stupid' doesn't even come close to describing this.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

It seems odd that you can have a dead body on the floor, but no crime, but the wording of Florida's law seems to make it easy for a misunderstanding to escalate into a death without any crimes taking place.

This is a problem with the idea of stand your ground laws. The burden if proof should be on the shooter, not the dead body.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mere Nick: Could be. If I was on a watch I'd probably be doing little more than seeing if someone was walking on the street or walking in a yard close to a house and acting like they were checking things out. That sort of thing. I don't know what else I could do.
We have neighbourhood watches in the Netherlands, especially in rougher neighbourhoods of cities like Rotterdam (I've lived in such a neighbourhood). They are not as pseudo-official as in this case in Florida: in the Netherlands they have a uniform, but they have less attributions than the police. And they don't carry a weapon of course.

'Keeping an eye on things' entails much more than you'd suspect. It means dealing in a relaxed way with a youth who throws a candy paper on the ground in front of you, just to provoke you. It means understanding when two people are just having a discussion in loud voices over the football game, or when it's a real fight and you have to call back-up. It means being able to talk in an authorative but relaxed voice with the youth with mopeds at the edge of the street who are becoming a little too loud and threatening...

You might say that if you're just 'keeping an eye on things' you wouldn't have to do these things. But that's an illusion. By 'keeping an eye on things' you are already a part of what happens on the street. People know that you're the one who's keeping an eye on things, and will react to that in various ways. You'll have to be able to deal with that.

Being able to discern between when there is nothing wrong or when something is happening, being able to talk with people, and above all being able to keep a cool head... all these things are vital to be a neighbourhood watch.

In the Netherlands, these people are thoroughly selected, trained and accompanied. Based on what I read from his calls to the police, Mr. Zimmerman would never be accepted for this position in my country.

And that's a good thing. I don't understand why you would content yourself with second best. And dangerous second best at that.

It appears that neighborhood watch in Rotterdam is far different that what I'd expect goes on here in my area.

The Montford community in Asheville has an organized neighborhood watch.

A link to their manual.

A few things that stand out to me is that the Rotterdam neighborhood watch is way too confrontational. If Zimmerman had gone by the manual he would not have been alone, he wouldn't be armed, he would have made no contact other than to the police and to start the calls down the calling tree, etc.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, people want to be reassured that their view of reality is safe and secure, and will not be disturbed.

I think you're reading a hell of a lot into people's attitudes and beliefs there.

My initial opinion on this case was that it was cut and dried. Zimmerman was a crazy vigilante who should be in jail. Actually listening to the other side has muddied the waters, and I can see why he was acquitted, even thinking that it was the right decision.

- I still think that the gun laws in the US are insane, and the idea that a neighbourhood watch member carries a gun is terrifying. But that IS the law in America. I can't expect Americans to operate as if they're in Britain.

- I still think that it's a tragedy that Martin died. Thinking that it's right that Zimmerman was acquitted does not mean that I think that it was right that he killed Martin.

- I still think that Zimmerman was a self-important dumbass to trail Martin, and if I was in Martin's position, I'd have gone into fight-or-flight mode too. Well, flight, not fight, because I'm a wuss. If only Martin had done the same, and ran home. Being a self-important dumbass does NOT necessarily make Zimmerman a murderer, or a manslaughterer however.

However, listening to what the actual evidence was, I think that it would have been wrong to find Zimmerman guilty. No-one except him knows for sure what happened. The evidence that Moo linked to seems pretty compelling, especially the eyewitness testimony.

But here's the thing. Even if I'm at the point where I think it's 50-50 between Zimmerman 'started it' / Martin 'started it', then he has to be acquitted. If I was a juror I'd have to be as close to certain as I can be that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and shot Martin. And with the small amount of evidence I've seen, there's simply not enough that shows that, and if anything (for me) it goes the other way. And as Mere Nick said, the Jurors heard a whole lot more about the case than I know.

This case makes me angry, not really at Zimmerman, but at the system that created the situation. Primarily the gun laws, but also the racist attitudes that still pervade in the US, and the vigilante attitude that is ever-present - seemingly both in Zimmerman (for tracking Martin), and in Martin (for wanting to confront Zimmerman rather than run home). There's so many "if only's" there that make it even more tragic that anybody had to die.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: There's the rub. Having a clown as a neighbourhood watch person is one thing; having an armed clown is something else.
Having an armed clown as a neighbourhood watch. With no structure at all to control or monitor him. And having laws that leave all benefit of the doubt with the guy with the gun.

'Stupid' doesn't even come close to describing this.

Well, it's not stupid really. It flows from a culture, or sub-culture, with its own morality, its precepts and percepts, and so on, and I guess it's all incredibly unconscious as well. There are different narratives about it as well - the right-wing one is the Martin was a hoodlum who got what he deserved; the liberal one that Zimmerman was out of control; and I guess there is a left-wing one. Jesus, how can a society get so fucked up?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

- I still think that the gun laws in the US are insane, and the idea that a neighbourhood watch member carries a gun is terrifying. But that IS the law in America. I can't expect Americans to operate as if they're in Britain.

If you look at the neighborhood watch manual from the National Sheriffs Association you will see they say to leave your guns at home and have two or more people if there is going to be a patrol. Do not confront anyone, just call the cops and start the neighborhood calling tree.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
- I still think that Zimmerman was a self-important dumbass to trail Martin, and if I was in Martin's position, I'd have gone into fight-or-flight mode too. Well, flight, not fight, because I'm a wuss. If only Martin had done the same, and ran home.

I note there's a lot more second-guessing of Martin's actions than of Zimmerman's, mostly along the lines of "the right decision is to try to outrun a man in a car."

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Given Zimmerman's injuries and that the police couldn't come up with evidence to refute his side of the story, it seems the most plausible explanation.

IANAL, and I might have some details screwed up, but how about this:

George spots Trayvon walking slowly and irregularly, talking on his headset. Because some break-ins were committed by black men, George makes the extraordinary assumption that any and all black men might break into a house and calls the police. He's also pretty hyped up because he has ADD*, which is only partly managed by medication.

Trayvon and Rachel are talking on the phone. Trayvon says he's being followed and starts trying to elude the follower by walking faster and short-cutting behind the houses. He's getting pretty freaked out. He's thinking of Emmett Till and James Byrd. At some point, his headphones fall down, but Rachel can still hear some of what is happening until the call is disconnected.

George loses sight of Trayvon. He pulls up to where he last saw Trayvon, gets out of his car, and draws his gun, because he knows he is leaving the safety of his vehicle and believes he is approaching a potential criminal. I am by no means a gun expert, but AIUI his gun has no safety and a round in the chamber. He walks around the area and spots Trayvon again. He hurries and approaches Trayvon.

Trayvon stops, turns around and says, "Why you following me, man?" George says, "What are you doing here?" Trayvon gets closer, George steps back quickly, and loses his footing on the wet grass. He falls on his ass, and his head also hits the lawn (not pavement). As he is lying on the ground, beginning to sit up, Trayvon steps closer, and George - remember, he's already drawn his gun - shoots him. Trayvon falls down beside George. George pushes Trayvon and rolls away. He knows the police are on the way, and draws on his knowledge of the law to concoct his story.

Even if my scenario is total fantasy, the defense would then have to refute it. I would be a small amount of money that Zimmerman, regardless of what really did happen, would have had some sort of meltdown on cross-examination that would have undermined his credibility.

*With respect to folks with ADD, this is a trial strategy, not any sort of judgment on people with ADD.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Could be, Soror. If I had to bet, my money would be on Martin and Zimmerman both wanting do-overs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You forgot that Martin was walking in the rain, sorry, loitering in the rain. Come on, any fool no that this is highly suspicious, as most normal people are tucked up at home in the dry. Who the hell loiters in the rain? Why, back home, you could have your arse thrashed just for doing that.

Anyway, the rain is just the beginning, and it ends up running into the blood.

PS. Zimmerman does not have to be cross-examined, as he does not have to give evidence at all. Quite right.

[ 18. July 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

Soror Magna's story, entertaining as it may be, doesn't constitute evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as the defense having to refute it, all they need is to introduce reasonable doubt - and without any evidence for this version of events, that's pretty easy to do. Sure, it could have happened exactly as she describes. But it just easily could not have happened that way, and that's really all the defense needs, isn't it?

As far as a meltdown - the defense would have been fools to have Zimmerman testify. There's nothing to be gained - the prosecution hasn't made anything resembling a solid case, so why risk a cross-examination?

[ 18. July 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: jbohn ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
- I still think that Zimmerman was a self-important dumbass to trail Martin, and if I was in Martin's position, I'd have gone into fight-or-flight mode too. Well, flight, not fight, because I'm a wuss. If only Martin had done the same, and ran home.
I note there's a lot more second-guessing of Martin's actions than of Zimmerman's, mostly along the lines of "the right decision is to try to outrun a man in a car."

Well, in the very paragraph you just quoted, I also second-guessed that Zimmerman was a self-important dumbass for trailing Martin. So, at least from me, that's one each. So if you want to make that observation (I might not disagree with you on it), then please don't make it from my posts.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: It appears that neighborhood watch in Rotterdam is far different that what I'd expect goes on here in my area.

I guess the word 'neighbourhood watch' can be confusing, because these people have different attributions in different countries. Here is a picture of our neighbourhood watches (Stadswachten).

quote:
Mere Nick: If you look at the neighborhood watch manual from the National Sheriffs Association you will see they say to leave your guns at home and have two or more people if there is going to be a patrol. Do not confront anyone, just call the cops and start the neighborhood calling tree.

Well, obviously this manual isn't enough to be able to control people who call themselves 'neighbourhood watches'. Zimmerman didn't follow this manual.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Could be, Soror. If I had to bet, my money would be on Martin and Zimmerman both wanting do-overs.

Why would Zimmerman want a do-over? He got to defend his neighborhood against a "fucking punk", suffer no legal consequences, and be a hero to a wide swath of American conservatives. And had it confirmed to him once again that nothing he does will result in serious consequences, at least for himself.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess the word 'neighbourhood watch' can be confusing, because these people have different attributions in different countries. Here is a picture of our neighbourhood watches (Stadswachten).

Interesting. I'd always assumed Dutch Neighbourhood Watches looked more like this.

[ 18. July 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose one of the things that is astonishing about this case (there are many), is that Zimmerman was correctly acquitted according to Floridian law. There is just no way that he could be found guilty, barring fresh evidence of course.

I suppose this has led to a kind of explosion of speculation about the case, since it sort of stinks.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: Interesting. I'd always assumed Dutch Neighbourhood Watches looked more like this.

Only after hours [Biased]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Getting by is hard enough if you're but marginally privileged. How can you spare anything for someone else when the rat race takes everything you've got?

That's meant with both sympathy and sarcasm.

ETA: This was inspired by Gwai's post far above.

[ 18. July 2013, 16:47: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over?

Because he killed someone.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over?
Because he killed someone.

The grief of the lose of a clean conscience is one thing, but I don't know how I'd weight it against the loss of a life.

I will reckon that both have some weight, though.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over?
Because he killed someone.
The grief of the lose of a clean conscience is one thing, but I don't know how I'd weight it against the loss of a life.

I will reckon that both have some weight, though.

I'd think the order sane folks would want is:
1. Clean conscience. No body count.
2. Troubled conscience. No body count.
3. Troubled conscience. Body count.
4. Clean conscience. Body count.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... PS. Zimmerman does not have to be cross-examined, as he does not have to give evidence at all. Quite right.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... As far as a meltdown - the defense would have been fools to have Zimmerman testify. There's nothing to be gained - the prosecution hasn't made anything resembling a solid case, so why risk a cross-examination?

The prosecution made it unnecessary for George Zimmerman to testify in his own defense because they (stupidly) introduced his various media interviews as evidence. This decision by the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to tell his story to the jury without the risk of cross-examination. That was a huge, huge mistake, and as with so many of their other mistakes, makes me think they didn't really want to win. After all, if the prosecution had won, it would have made the Sanford police look pretty bad for letting Zimmerman go home that night.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, obviously this manual isn't enough to be able to control people who call themselves 'neighbourhood watches'. Zimmerman didn't follow this manual.

Because, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't on a patrol. He was going grocery shopping, when he saw Martin and thought he was acting suspiciously.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over? He got to defend his neighborhood against a "fucking punk", suffer no legal consequences, and be a hero to a wide swath of American conservatives. And had it confirmed to him once again that nothing he does will result in serious consequences, at least for himself.

And he may get a book deal out of it. There certainly are enough conservatives who would buy it, even if they couldn't read it. They could buy the recorded version.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over?
Because he killed someone.

Also note that regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, the civil wrongful death suit that Martin's family are going to bring, or any (IMO complete nonsense) moves towards a federal civil rights prosecution, Zimmerman isn't going back to a normal life. Who on earth would give George Zimmerman a job now?

He's better off than Trayvon Martin, but I'll bet he wishes that he'd stayed in his car.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: Because, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't on a patrol. He was going grocery shopping, when he saw Martin and thought he was acting suspiciously.

All the more reason not to go after him. He should have kept a safe distance, called the police, and that was that.

Manuals like this are there for a reason. Mostly to prevent situations from escalating. What use are manuals if you stick to them when you're on patrol, but anything goes when you're not?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, obviously this manual isn't enough to be able to control people who call themselves 'neighbourhood watches'. Zimmerman didn't follow this manual.
Because, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't on a patrol.

And the Neighborhood Watch's guidelines about not confronting suspected criminals is a bad idea if you're alone and not on patrol?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a problem with the idea of stand your ground laws. The burden if proof should be on the shooter, not the dead body.

Yes, but there's a problem with that, too. Suppose someone is attacked whilst walking home at night, and shoots and kills his attacker.

How does he prove his innocence? There's no evidence.

If the attacker was a stranger - maybe a stranger with a criminal record for mugging people in alleys - he might manage it.

If he knew the attacker - maybe there had been bad blood between them in the past - I don't see how he could prove anything.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The prosecution made it unnecessary for George Zimmerman to testify in his own defense because they (stupidly) introduced his various media interviews as evidence. This decision by the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to tell his story to the jury without the risk of cross-examination.

I didn't follow the trial, so I missed this. What did the offer, and to show what? (Everybody gets excited about odd things; hearsay exceptions are one of my odd things.)

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why would Zimmerman want a do-over?
Because he killed someone.
Also note that regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, the civil wrongful death suit that Martin's family are going to bring, or any (IMO complete nonsense) moves towards a federal civil rights prosecution, Zimmerman isn't going back to a normal life. Who on earth would give George Zimmerman a job now?

He's better off than Trayvon Martin, but I'll bet he wishes that he'd stayed in his car.

It appears Zimmerman is suing NBC and it is conceivable that Corey may be in some serious trouble for failing to disclose information. Dershowitz is calling for her to be disbarred. It appears this isn't going away until everyone has had a chance to get people fired or to get their money.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
He's better off than Trayvon Martin, but I'll bet he wishes that he'd stayed in his car.

I think you'd lose that bet. From Zimmerman's interview with Sean Hannity:

quote:
HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Maybe he's lying on the advice of counsel, who told him that expressing regret or remorse could be construed as an admission of liability, but he's on record as remorseless.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Leorning Cniht: Because, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't on a patrol. He was going grocery shopping, when he saw Martin and thought he was acting suspiciously.
All the more reason not to go after him. He should have kept a safe distance, called the police, and that was that.

Manuals like this are there for a reason. Mostly to prevent situations from escalating. What use are manuals if you stick to them when you're on patrol, but anything goes when you're not?

Right now I don't see any reason to think that Zimmerman had ever heard of such a manual.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe he's lying on the advice of counsel, who told him that expressing regret or remorse could be construed as an admission of liability,

Sounds like a safe bet.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe he's lying on the advice of counsel, who told him that expressing regret or remorse could be construed as an admission of liability,
Sounds like a safe bet.

Not necessarily. Zimmerman could just sincerely not regret anything he did that night. Why is it so hard to take him at his word?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
All the more reason not to go after him. He should have kept a safe distance, called the police, and that was that.

I agree. Remaining at a safe distance is exactly what he should have done. Not doing that was merely stupid, rather than criminal, though.

But he wasn't "carrying a gun in violation of neighborhood watch policy" or anything like that, because he wasn't on patrol, he was shopping. And he didn't see Trayvon Martin, then decide to get a gun and follow him - he was wearing his gun at the time.

Now, maybe the fact that he had his gun gave him the courage to get out of his car, and he'd have stayed in his car if he was unarmed. Or maybe he would have got out of the car anyway, and it could have been Trayvon Martin in the dock for assault or whatever. I think it's too hard to tell.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: Yes, but there's a problem with that, too. Suppose someone is attacked whilst walking home at night, and shoots and kills his attacker.

How does he prove his innocence? There's no evidence.

On the other hand, if you can just shoot someone on the street, claim it was self defence and leave it up to the other party to prove that it is not, you could easily use this to execute anyone you'd want.

I have been looking at the laws about self defence in the Netherlands. These laws state that for someone to claim self defence, he should have made a reasonable effort to avoid a situation where he'd need to resort to self defence in the first place. Jurisdiction explicitly states that this is especially true for people who have been trained in forms of combat, for example off-duty policemen, soldiers and neighbourhood watches.

Now, this is what I call sane.

quote:
Mere Nick: Right now I don't see any reason to think that Zimmerman had ever heard of such a manual.

You're the one who brought up this manual, not me. All the more reason why he shouldn't be out chasing suspects.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: I agree. Remaining at a safe distance is exactly what he should have done. Not doing that was merely stupid, rather than criminal, though.

In my view, it should be criminal.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Leorning Cniht: I agree. Remaining at a safe distance is exactly what he should have done. Not doing that was merely stupid, rather than criminal, though.
In my view, it should be criminal.

You think it should be a criminal offence for anyone who isn't the police to attempt to stop a crime?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why is it so hard to take him at his word?

If we were all as willing to take Zimmerman at his word as you suddenly are, this thread would have ended pages ago.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: You think it should be a criminal offence for anyone who isn't the police to attempt to stop a crime?

I already answered this on this thread. Anyone who isn't police should stick to keeping a safe distance and calling the police. If you don't heed this and seek a confrontation, then you are at least partly responsible for what happens next. Under Dutch law, claiming self defence would be extremely difficult if you were seeking a confrontation (and carrying the murder weapon with you).

[ 18. July 2013, 18:09: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You think it should be a criminal offence for anyone who isn't the police to attempt to stop a crime?

Not to get too technical with you, but Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're the one who brought up this manual, not me. All the more reason why he shouldn't be out chasing suspects.

That is true, but you referred to it with

"Manuals like this are there for a reason. Mostly to prevent situations from escalating."

All I'm saying is that Zimmerman probably has never heard of it. So much of what he did goes directly against it.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Originaly posted by Creose
Not to get too technical with you, but Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime.

Wouldn't assault (w/o battery) be a crime?

[ 18. July 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: IconiumBound ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: All I'm saying is that Zimmerman probably has never heard of it. So much of what he did goes directly against it.

We're moving in circles here. If he hasn't heard of it, then he's not a neighbourhood watch but an ordinary citizen who shouldn't chase suspects. If he does so anyway and takes a weapon with him, then under the laws I'd find acceptable he wouldn't be able to claim self defence anymore.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:

quote:
Originaly posted by Creose
Not to get too technical with you, but Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime.
Wouldn't assault (w/o battery) be a crime?

That depends if he was defending himself against Zimmerman, doesn't it...

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:

quote:
Originaly posted by Creose
Not to get too technical with you, but Trayvon Martin hadn't committed a crime.
Wouldn't assault (w/o battery) be a crime?

To the extent that Martin intentionally caused Zimmerman to believe that he was in imminent risk of bodily harm, it would have happened after Zimmerman pursued him.

Edit for clarity: the original question was, should it be illegal to pursue somebody in an effort to stop a crime. Creose properly pointed out that, at the time Zimmerman began to chase Martin, Martin had not committed a crime.

[ 18. July 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe he's lying on the advice of counsel, who told him that expressing regret or remorse could be construed as an admission of liability,
Sounds like a safe bet.
Not necessarily. Zimmerman could just sincerely not regret anything he did that night. Why is it so hard to take him at his word?

Because I've never met anyone who gets off on killing people, even when they have to as it appears in the Zimmerman case. Potential lawsuits is why I believe he is not admitting how he really feels.

My dad had to choke a Japanese soldier to death in WW2. I found out about it from my two older brothers and my mother because he had nightmares about it every now and then for years and it would wake them up. He was certainly more justified than Zimmerman in my book but even then, it haunted him. Likewise, I don't Zimmerman is sleeping very well, either, and is just trying to protect himself from additional legal wranglings.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I didn't follow the trial, so I missed this. What did the offer, and to show what? (Everybody gets excited about odd things; hearsay exceptions are one of my odd things.)

quote:
REMI SPENCER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's exactly right, Tucker. I mean, that the state made the decision to introduce this video at the trial, is very surprising. This was an interview that Zimmerman set up with his lawyer, and it was a self-serving interview. He explained and the jury now has heard that he did nothing wrong, that he was defending himself. Why the state would give the defendant the opportunity to testify in the state's case in chief is really odd.

Now, maybe they're expecting that they're going to impeach him in some way, maybe they think that he may testify and he'll contradict what he said to Sean in that interview. But it almost seems like the state is sort of throwing their arms up in the air and saying, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you decide. This is what he's saying, you decide. As if, perhaps, they didn't even want to bring this case to the courtroom in the first place.

Also, in that interview, George Zimmerman clearly has no interest in a do-over:

quote:
HANNITY: Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, TRAYVON MARTIN'S SHOOTER: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it --

HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that time has passed a little bit?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Zimmerman's Hannity Interview

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Also, in that interview, George Zimmerman clearly has no interest in a do-over:

Well, he's at least not interesting in providing info to help him get sued.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mere Nick: All I'm saying is that Zimmerman probably has never heard of it. So much of what he did goes directly against it.
We're moving in circles here. If he hasn't heard of it, then he's not a neighbourhood watch but an ordinary citizen who shouldn't chase suspects. If he does so anyway and takes a weapon with him, then under the laws I'd find acceptable he wouldn't be able to claim self defence anymore.

While there is a manual from the National Sheriffs Association there is nothing that I'm aware of that would keep from getting a t-shirt, writing Neighborhood Watch on it with a magic marker and then start walking around the neighborhood claiming to be a bad ass. If your neighborhood watch organization wants to work with the local sheriff and goes by the manual, you won't be chasing suspects, you won't be armed, and you won't be playing Lone Ranger.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: While there is a manual from the National Sheriffs Association there is nothing that I'm aware of that would keep from getting a t-shirt, writing Neighborhood Watch on it with a magic marker and then start walking around the neighborhood claiming to be a bad ass.

That's your problem, right there.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Anyone who isn't police should stick to keeping a safe distance and calling the police.

We have no obligation to help one another, or to keep one another safe? If, for example, I see a mugging on the street I should just cross over to the other side and walk on? If I see someone climbing out of my neighbours window with her TV I should step aside and let him escape?

Calling the police would, of course, be useless as by the time they turned up the mugger or thief would be long gone.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: We have no obligation to help one another, or to keep one another safe? If, for example, I see a mugging on the street I should just cross over to the other side and walk on? If I see someone climbing out of my neighbours window with her TV I should step aside and let him escape?

The way I understand it, under Dutch law you should call the police. If you do decide to act, then maybe this won't be a crime (depending on some factors like if you actually bring a weapon into the scene, even if it's only a brick), but you'll definitely lose any claim to self defence.

I doubt that it's very different in the UK?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We have no obligation to help one another, or to keep one another safe?

Exactly how was Trayvon Martin kept safe? Alternately, who was he a danger to before being hunted down?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mere Nick: While there is a manual from the National Sheriffs Association there is nothing that I'm aware of that would keep from getting a t-shirt, writing Neighborhood Watch on it with a magic marker and then start walking around the neighborhood claiming to be a bad ass.
That's your problem, right there.

That's why if we ever have a Neighborhood Watch I'll be sure to attend the meetings about it to advocate that we work with the sheriff and go by the book.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mere Nick: ]That's why if we ever have a Neighborhood Watch I'll be sure to attend the meetings about it to advocate that we work with the sheriff and go by the book.

That's great.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Anyone who isn't police should stick to keeping a safe distance and calling the police.
We have no obligation to help one another, or to keep one another safe? If, for example, I see a mugging on the street I should just cross over to the other side and walk on? If I see someone climbing out of my neighbours window with her TV I should step aside and let him escape?

Calling the police would, of course, be useless as by the time they turned up the mugger or thief would be long gone.

If you see someone stealing my TV just get as good a description of the thief as you can, get their tag number and car description, etc. Electronics like that, though often a target, are getting cheaper and better every day. I don't want someone risking themselves for a tv I bought over a year ago for just $600 and is covered by my insurance. On the other hand, if you see a mugging, make sure the guy getting beat up isn't the mugger.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

I doubt that it's very different in the UK?

With my understanding of UK law, if you see someone being mugged, and intervene to defend them, you are entirely legitimately allowed to use "reasonable" force.

The police don't exactly go around encouraging it - partly because they don't want to encourage vigilante behaviour, and part because they don't want to advise people to take some risky action that ends up getting them hurt, but they do routinely commend citizens who intervene in such situations to prevent crime. See, for example, here.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We have no obligation to help one another, or to keep one another safe?
Exactly how was Trayvon Martin kept safe? Alternately, who was he a danger to before being hunted down?

I think they have moved on from the specific facts of the Martin case to a more general discussion of if a citizen should ever take it upon himself to stop a crime, or if he should always wait for the police to show up.

(And while I am already replying, anyone who has read the threads about people being left to die from heart attacks knows that in the common law system, you have no affirmative obligation to help others or keep one another safe, beyond your duty to not cause harm intentionally or through your own negligence. It is usually something that people criticize about the common law system around here.)

[ 18. July 2013, 21:24: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: With my understanding of UK law, if you see someone being mugged, and intervene to defend them, you are entirely legitimately allowed to use "reasonable" force.

That's true, but I guess there is a juridical difference between being allowed to use reasonable force, and being able to claim self-defence.

Let's translate the Florida situation to the UK for a moment, allowing for the fact that carrying a fire arm is prohibited in the latter country.

Our British guy Zimmerman is walking through a suburb of Manchester, carrying a big brick with him because he's on the lookout for crime. He sees a black bloke Trayvon whom he finds suspicious. He follows him, first on car and then on foot. Trayvon becomes aggressive and starts beating him. Zimmerman punches him with the brick on his head, killing him.

Would he be able to claim that he used reasonable force in response to a crime?

Would he be able to claim self-defence? I don't think he could under Dutch law, because he sought the confrontation and brought a weapon.

I wonder how this would play out in the UK.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This youtube report, by Martin Bashir of MSNBC is worth seeing and listening to. I think he's correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg

quote:
Martin Bashir MSNBC:
3 facts stand out

1. a man with a gun chose to pursue an unarmed teenager who'd done nothing wrong

2. the man with the gun chose to initiate a confrontation with the teenager even though he'd been told not to.

3. the man with the gun shot the teenager to death

[ 18. July 2013, 21:47: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And he may get a book deal out of it. There certainly are enough conservatives who would buy it, even if they couldn't read it. They could buy the recorded version.

Clint Eastwood could record it. Though you might have to tie the mic to an empty chair to hold his attention.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Yes, but there's a problem with that, too. Suppose someone is attacked whilst walking home at night, and shoots and kills his attacker.

How does he prove his innocence? There's no evidence.

If the attacker was a stranger - maybe a stranger with a criminal record for mugging people in alleys - he might manage it.

If he knew the attacker - maybe there had been bad blood between them in the past - I don't see how he could prove anything.

The Stand your Ground laws give the impression, and sometimes the real burden, towards the person likely to end up dead. If the laws are written and presented as the shooter needs to justify their actions, it will have the effect of reducing questionable shootings.
It should not be difficult to draft a law which states one is allowed self-defense if there is no other option. allowing one to initiate a confrontation then kill if one is losing is insane.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Because I've never met anyone who gets off on killing people,

I can assure they exist. There is a range between wanting to kill and being unwilling to kill even in defense. Every rung on the ladder in between is occupied.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Our British guy Zimmerman is walking through a suburb of Manchester, carrying a big brick with him because he's on the lookout for crime.

Nope. He can't do that - he can't carry any kind of weapon, or object intended to be used as a weapon, in the UK. We could make it a couple of tins of vegetables that he'd just bought in the shop if you like - put them in a bag, and they'd act like a cosh, but he has a legitimate reason to carry them.

quote:

He sees a black bloke Trayvon whom he finds suspicious. He follows him, first on car and then on foot.

But now we'd have to explain why he took his shopping with him. Maybe he'd better have been on foot all the time, and we'll skip the car thing. After all, in the UK he probably wouldn't have been able to find a parking space anyway [Devil]

quote:

Trayvon becomes aggressive and starts beating him. Zimmerman punches him with the brick on his head, killing him.

Would he be able to claim that he used reasonable force in response to a crime?

Would he be able to claim self-defence? I don't think he could under Dutch law, because he sought the confrontation and brought a weapon.

I think if Trayvon had started hitting him, George had hit back with the cans of veg in a bag, and killed him, then George would have a very good claim to reasonable force. As long as he didn't keep on pounding him once he was down.

If he had brought a "weapon" with him, he's in all kinds of trouble, though.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This youtube report, by Martin Bashir of MSNBC is worth seeing and listening to. I think he's correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg

quote:
Martin Bashir MSNBC:
3 facts stand out

1. a man with a gun chose to pursue an unarmed teenager who'd done nothing wrong

2. the man with the gun chose to initiate a confrontation with the teenager even though he'd been told not to.

3. the man with the gun shot the teenager to death

I don't think anyone would dispute 1 & 3, but there has been plenty of discussion about 2, which AFAICT is not a "fact".

Firstly, the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if he's following Martin, being told "yes", and responding "you don't need to do that sir" is not the same as being told not to initiate a confrontation. Secondly, it's simply not known who initiated the confrontation. Either Zimmerman did and is lying, or he is telling the truth and Martin jumped him. Some people think that
the simple act of following in the car was an act of aggression. Others disagree. But whatever, IMO the case pretty much hinges on "fact #2", which isn't a fact but an unknown, and is one of the main things that has caused the most disagreement in this thread.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: Secondly, it's simply not known who initiated the confrontation.

The one who got out of the car with a gun to follow the other guy.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
goperryrevs: Secondly, it's simply not known who initiated the confrontation.
The one who got out of the car with a gun to follow the other guy.

If we knew for a fact that he got out of the car in order to follow and physically confront Martin, then you'd be right.

If it was so he could just locate him, but keep his distance, so he knew where he was when the police arrived, then you'd be wrong. He didn't get out of the car to "follow" Martin, but to spot him.

The call to the police suggests the latter, especially that he arranged a place to meet the police when they arrived. But whatever, as I've said, we don't know. It'd be much easier for everyone if we did. This thread would probably be a lot shorter.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Well, there was a confrontation. And the whole thing was initiated by Zimmerman. The other one was just returning home from the supermarket.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if he's following Martin, being told "yes", and responding "you don't need to do that sir" is not the same as being told not to initiate a confrontation.

I have learned that 'You don't need to do that.' is a standard instruction to volunteers. It protects the dispatcher from legal liability if things turn out badly.

Moo

[ 18. July 2013, 22:34: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, there was a confrontation. And the whole thing was initiated by Zimmerman. The other one was just returning home from the supermarket.

"Caused" would certainly be right- I don't think that anyone would dispute that, but for Zimmerman following Martin, who was doing nothing wrong, this shitty situation wouldn't have happened.

We are on 500+ responses to this thread because we don't know exactly how it got to the point where Zimmerman shot Martin. Did he grab Martin? Did Martin take exception to being stalked by a creepy guy and confront him? I don't know, and I don't know that anyone other that Zimmerman himself knows either. The reporter, contrary to No Profit's post, said that "only three facts matter." Clearly if only three facts did matter, this would have been a much simpler case.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, there was a confrontation. And the whole thing was initiated by Zimmerman. The other one was just returning home from the supermarket.

I'm not sure if there's a language barrier here. I've only ever heard confrontation to describe a physical or verbal coming together. Following someone in a car, even trailing them on foot is not confronting them.

So, again, Zimmerman is the only one who knows what happened when the two of them physically met, rather than observing each other from a distance, and how it happened. So again, we don't know who actually confronted who.

On the wider point of the whole thing being initiated by Zimmerman, I agree. He was an over-zealous, perhaps racist (though I'm not certain of that) vigilante idiot. However, being an over-zealous racist vigilante idiot in America is not illegal.

What I don't know is if he is a murderer / manslaughter or not. Only he knows that. There was not enough evidence of either to convict him.

What I would not want is that despite that lack of evidence, that he should be found guilty anyhow, because a whole bunch of people have just decided he must be guilty. That sets a very scary precedent (AFAIK, it's already a problem in the US that too many innocent people get found guilty). Blackstone's formulation and all that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Og, King of Bashan: The reporter, contrary to No Profit's post, said that "only three facts matter." Clearly if only three facts did matter, this would have been a much simpler case.

I gather that in many jurisdictions these three facts would have been sufficient.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Og, King of Bashan: The reporter, contrary to No Profit's post, said that "only three facts matter." Clearly if only three facts did matter, this would have been a much simpler case.
I gather that in many jurisdictions these three facts would have been sufficient.

But not in the jurisdiction that mattered.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: I'm not sure if there's a language barrier here. I've only ever heard confrontation to describe a physical or verbal coming together. Following someone in a car, even trailing them on foot is not confronting them.

I think many people use a broader definition of 'confrontation', including the MSNBC reporter quoted above.

quote:
goperryrevs: What I would not want is that despite that lack of evidence, that he should be found guilty anyhow, because a whole bunch of people have just decided he must be guilty.

That's not my point. Zimmerman is probably innocent under Floridan law. But that's because this law has a too broad definition of self defence. What I'm hoping for is not so much for Zimmerman to be found guilty, but that some momentum will build up to change this law.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Og, King of Bashan: But not in the jurisdiction that mattered.

I know. That's why I think the law in this jurisdiction sucks, and I hope it will change.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Og, King of Bashan: The reporter, contrary to No Profit's post, said that "only three facts matter." Clearly if only three facts did matter, this would have been a much simpler case.
I gather that in many jurisdictions these three facts would have been sufficient.

So do I. Which is why I posted it.

< BTW, no prophet sounds the same as no profit but they have different combinations of letters and the end result is a different meaning. >

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if he's following Martin, being told "yes", and responding "you don't need to do that sir" is not the same as being told not to initiate a confrontation.
I have learned that 'You don't need to do that.' is a standard instruction to volunteers. It protects the dispatcher from legal liability if things turn out badly.

It's also a "soft power" way of managing a person and a situation. It's a step or two above "here, have a cookie--no, two!" to distract the person. (Which can be a good--and delicious--strategy!) If you start out with a soft approach, you can escalate to DEFCON1, if necessary; but starting out with a DEFCON 1 nuclear approach kind of destroys all other options.

I think the dispatcher was trying to manage Z and the situation, until the police could arrive and sort things out.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Golden Key: It's also a "soft power" way of managing a person and a situation. It's a step or two above "here, have a cookie--no, two!" to distract the person. (Which can be a good--and delicious--strategy!) If you start out with a soft approach, you can escalate to DEFCON1, if necessary; but starting out with a DEFCON 1 nuclear approach kind of destroys all other options.

I think the dispatcher was trying to manage Z and the situation, until the police could arrive and sort things out.

That would be my interpretation too.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, there was a confrontation. And the whole thing was initiated by Zimmerman. The other one was just returning home from the supermarket.

Confrontation and the whole thing are not synonyms. Claiming that they are will not make it so.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
allowing one to initiate a confrontation then kill if one is losing is insane

But do you think the text of the Florida law actually does that?

I would have to go back and read the text very carefully, preferably on a much larger screen than my iPhone, to be certain, but let me suggest to you that the text of the law DOESN'T allow this. The reason you think it does is because you're assuming a set of facts that is not necessarily the set of facts that the jury accepted for the purpose of applying the law.

[ 19. July 2013, 02:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Well, there was a confrontation. And the whole thing was initiated by Zimmerman. The other one was just returning home from the supermarket.
Confrontation and the whole thing are not synonyms. Claiming that they are will not make it so.

Courts and laws and stories told in court rooms by lawyers -- none of it necessarily equates to truth. Nor perhaps to justice and nor fairness. A teenager is dead, and a man shot him. The story of how he shot him, well, the jury and the court were told a story they accepted at the level that courts do. Like I said, it is not necessarily about truth, justice nor fairness. And not necessarily all law, but at least some law, is indeed an ass.

quote:
Charles Dickens, in Oliver Twist
If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.

May the law asses and idiots have their eye opened by experience, O God we pray.

R: Christ have mercy.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There is no evidence that premise in the second of the reporters 3 "facts" has been made put, and precious little of the first either. Zimmerman's evidence was that he was following Martin and keeping an eye on him. He then lost him for a short time and was then confronted by Martin and the fatal brawl followed.

Can we believe Zimmerman? In several respects, his evidence was corroborated. There was the person who at some distance saw martin on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. There is the evidence that the back of Zimmerman's clothing was wet, as if he had been on the wet pavement, and that the knees of Martin's jeans were similarly wet. With that level of corroboration, I'd be inclined to accept the remainder of his evidence.

Additionally, we have the message from Martin to his girlfriend that he was looking for a fight. Martin had done nothing wrong by the time Zimmerman started to follow him, but that needs to be understood in the context that he then confronted Zimmerman and assaulted him.

As I said before, the prosecutor knew well before the trial what the evidence which came out would be. He may have hoped to break Zimmerman down, but given the matters of corroboration, that was a fairly forlorn hope. The evidence simply did not amount to murder. The prosecutor would have vastly increased the chances of a conviction by a charge of manslaughter on the basis of excessive force in self-defence.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
allowing one to initiate a confrontation then kill if one is losing is insane
But do you think the text of the Florida law actually does that?

I would have to go back and read the text very carefully, preferably on a much larger screen than my iPhone, to be certain, but let me suggest to you that the text of the law DOESN'T allow this. The reason you think it does is because you're assuming a set of facts that is not necessarily the set of facts that the jury accepted for the purpose of applying the law.

I did not assume, it was quoted earlier in this thread. Full statute.

Relevant text:

quote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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;

If you think I am interpreting this incorrectly, please explain how.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It says a lot more than 'I'm losing the fight now'. That's where I think you're misinterpreting it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It says a lot more than 'I'm losing the fight now'. That's where I think you're misinterpreting it.

Does it really, though? The initial aggressor has to feel "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm". So let's assume that there has been a tussle, the initial aggressor is not on the ground, and the attackee is now on top pounding him. Does the guy on top intend to do serious damage, or just give him a bit of a kicking? How is he supposed to know?

As far as I can see, it would be reasonable to feel "imminent danger..." in any circumstance where you have been trapped with no means of escape, and a violent assault is continuing unabated.

[ 19. July 2013, 06:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Something I've been wondering: how did Z get hold of his gun?

If you go with the theory that M pinned Z down (face up) and was smashing his head; and also go with the idea (mentioned upthread) that Z had his gun tucked into the back of his pants, how likely is it that Z could reach under himself and get that gun?

Until I read that upthread comment, I'd been assuming that it was a shoulder holster, worn under his jacket. Not sure why I thought that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It says a lot more than 'I'm losing the fight now'. That's where I think you're misinterpreting it.

It relies on what someone believes. Or claims they believe.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
the initial aggressor is not on the ground,

Oh dear. "now" on the ground, which changes the whole sense of the paragraph.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Something I've been wondering: how did Z get hold of his gun?

If you go with the theory that M pinned Z down (face up) and was smashing his head; and also go with the idea (mentioned upthread) that Z had his gun tucked into the back of his pants, how likely is it that Z could reach under himself and get that gun?

Until I read that upthread comment, I'd been assuming that it was a shoulder holster, worn under his jacket. Not sure why I thought that.

I thought the same thing. The Wikipedia article gives some detail:

quote:
According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" and continued to beat Zimmerman.[165] Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.[166][167][168][Note 8]

On June 21, 2012, Zimmerman's attorneys released audiotapes of several interviews he had with police shortly after the shooting. Also included were Zimmerman's written statement of February 26, 2012, and video recordings of his reenactment of the incident and a voice stress test that he passed.[160][162][174][175][176]

In the interviews, Zimmerman says he took note of Martin because he was near a home that he had previously called police about. He also said "he was just walking casually, not like he was trying to get out of the rain," and he felt "something was off" about Martin.[171]

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[173] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[173][174] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, then Martin said "You got a problem now" and punched Zimmerman.[177] As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times." (See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls) Martin told him to "Shut the fuck up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk.[174] When Zimmerman tried to move off the concrete, Martin saw his gun and said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker!" Martin grabbed for the gun, but Zimmerman grabbed it first. He said after firing his weapon at Martin, he wasn't sure at first that he had hit him, so he got on top of him in order to subdue him.[173][173][174] Bystanders and police arrived shortly after Martin was shot.[178][179]

It still isn't clear, though, how Zimmerman managed to get his hand on his gun.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Neither is it clear how Martin could have seen it in the first place, with Z allegedly on the ground and Martin allegedly astride his chest, allegedly both punching Z and banging Z's head against the cement.

You need an available hand to reach for a gun.

Yes, M was taller, but Z was heavier. Z was allegedly prostrate and with M's knees allegedly in Z's armpits. If M reaches for Z's gun (again, hard to see how M could notice a gun Z must have been lying on top of), only one of M's hands was punching or hitting Z's head against the walk. IOW, Z's hands were available to Z to push M off or away, or to seize the hand with which M was allegedly reaching for the gun.

Even if the struggle involved Z's writhing side-to-side, potentially revealing the gun, M's own legs, in the struggle as described, would have hidden Z's gun from view, and I'm having a hard time believing that perhaps feeling a hard object bumping M's leg in the struggle would have so readily been discerned by M as a gun.

I'm having trouble understanding how M noticed the gun and reached for the gun while keeping a man "pinned" to the ground. I do understand that physical evidence -- grass stains, injuries, etc. -- are consistent with this narrative, and yes, were I on the jury, I would end up with reasonable doubt as to Z's guilt under existing law.

That said, I have plenty of reasonable doubt about Z's narrative, too.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I don't think anyone would dispute 1 & 3, but there has been plenty of discussion about 2, which AFAICT is not a "fact".

Yes, it depends whether you believe Zimmerman's or Jeantel's version of events.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Upthread I asked for the source of the statement that Zimmermann's gun was in a holster at the small of his back.

No one answered this, and I would still like to know.

Moo

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One problem is that once you start filleting the various accounts, there are lots of odd sounding things. For example, in an early police report Zimmerman seems to say that he was punched 25-30 times, but this seems unlikely. He is supposed to have suffered a broken nose, but refused medical treatment. The shot is supposed to be of 'intermediate range' i.e. about one foot, and perpendicular to the chest, and all this in a grappling situation.

Anyway, you can go on and on, and it would soon turn into another 9/11 paranoid monograph. I suppose you just have to let it go, with the proviso that there is something stinky about the whole thing. But I think the acquittal was correct, as there was no countermanding evidence of any real quality. Well, Zimmerman said 'they always get away'.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Upthread I asked for the source of the statement that Zimmermann's gun was in a holster at the small of his back.

No one answered this, and I would still like to know.

Moo

Your question was answered on Page 7. Right above one of your posts, as it happens.

[ 19. July 2013, 12:36: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He is supposed to have suffered a broken nose, but refused medical treatment.

Zimmermann accepted treatment from the EMTs but refused to go to an emergency room. He saw his own doctor the next day. I can understand his refusal to go to the ER. He probably wanted peace and quiet, which is not a characteristic of ERs.

quote:
The shot is supposed to be of 'intermediate range' i.e. about one foot, and perpendicular to the chest, and all this in a grappling situation.

The medical examiner said that when the gun was fired,the muzzle was in contact with Martin's shirt but was several inches away from his skin. The obvious explanation for this is that he was leaning forward, and his shirt had fallen away from his body. This supports the story that Martin was on top of Zimmermann. This was not exactly a grappling situation.

Moo

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

it's disturbing to me that this thread of 586+ posts has gone on in these four days with arguing about "who struck first?" or "who started this fight?" without resolution. This is much like a fight between kids and trying to sort out the same questions which can never done.

Why has this issue produced such a spate of unresolvablity and irritation? I think it is because it has hit our tribal nerves in the area of fear and danger of the other.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Why has this issue produced such a spate of unresolvablity and irritation?

For my part, it's because so many people are so insistent that because a white (or near enough) guy shot a black guy it must be a racist hate-crime murder, regardless of any evidence that may have been presented. It's like they want him to face the death penalty purely because of his race, and I hate that shit just as much as I hate it when the races are the other way around.

And yes, it makes me nervous. It makes me worry that if I get jumped by some kid on my way home from work tonight and in the process of fighting back accidentally kill him, I'm going to be thought of as an evil murdering bastard rather than someone who was just trying to defend myself.

The other thing that troubles me is if Zimmerman hadn't fired his gun, he may well be dead now. And some on this board would be saying he deserved to be killed for no better reason than he was trying to keep his neighbourhood safe from crime.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's partly that nobody really knows what happened, isn't it? OK, Zimmerman has his narrative, which was enough for an acquittal, but many people smell a rat, which may be their own prejudice, I suppose.

I suppose in a US context, it's got a lot of anxiety indicators - black kid shot, guns, self-defence laws, vigilantism, violence in the street, and tons more.

Plus, I think, the possibility of multiple interpretations, like a postmodern nightmare.

[ 19. July 2013, 13:17: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The other thing that troubles me is if Zimmerman hadn't fired his gun, he may well be dead now.

It's arguable that under Floridan law as it stands, if Zimmerman had been killed, Martin would not have committed a crime even if everything had been as Zimmerman describes. That should trouble you more.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The other thing that troubles me is if Zimmerman hadn't fired his gun, he may well be dead now.
It's arguable that under Floridan law as it stands, if Zimmerman had been killed, Martin would not have committed a crime even if everything had been as Zimmerman describes. That should trouble you more.

That's true - in that scenario the trial would again depend on who started the fight, and there would again be enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That was one of my first reactions - if Martin had been armed, would he have been justified in shooting Z. to stop being shot?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And some on this board would be saying he deserved to be killed for no better reason than he was trying to keep his neighbourhood safe from crime.

I think it shows that context is everything.

The context within which Zimmerman was acting was a neighborhood beset by recent burglaries, so many that a neighborhood watch was organized, which he was head of. He had every reason to be suspicious and to go out of his way to try to anticipate and prevent these burglaries.

But that local context is at odds with the larger context of a nation where that kind of suspicion is evidence of negative racial attitudes and stereotyping.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
For my part, it's because so many people are so insistent that because a white (or near enough) guy shot a black guy it must be a racist hate-crime murder, regardless of any evidence that may have been presented. It's like they want him to face the death penalty purely because of his race, and I hate that shit just as much as I hate it when the races are the other way around.

I dislike all racism as well. I've spent much time trying to convince people that not all white people are evil and that not all white perpetrated incidents are based one race.
In this case there are indications that it might be racial, but no proof.
The race thing caught international headlines, but regardless of their colours, I would be arguing the same. Someone is dead because a wannabe Dirty Harry* was pumped up by a ridiculously framed statute.

*Or so ISTM.

[ 19. July 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And some on this board would be saying he deserved to be killed for no better reason than he was trying to keep his neighbourhood safe from crime.

This is also only true if you assume that the only way of keeping his neighbourhood safe was to follow people around while armed.

quote:

That was one of my first reactions - if Martin had been armed, would he have been justified in shooting Z. to stop being shot?

Which is hugely problematic - because there is suddenly a whole set of interactions over which the state will stand back and simply say 'what will be will be'. And contra-Marvin it's highly probable that had things been the other way around that Martin would have gone to jail, see all those conservative outlets that argue that Martin should have surrendered (wtf?)

So you now have a state of affairs where one set of the population has a license to terrorise another set. Imagine a SYG style situation in one of those states where vigilantes patrol the border - for instance.

[ 19. July 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, some people are going down the counterfactual road - suppose Zimmerman was a black guy, and Martin a rich young white kid, sort of dancing in the rain? Of course, possibly Z. would not suspect a rich young white kid dancing in the rain.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The other thing that troubles me is if Zimmerman hadn't fired his gun, he may well be dead now.
It's arguable that under Floridan law as it stands, if Zimmerman had been killed, Martin would not have committed a crime even if everything had been as Zimmerman describes. That should trouble you more.

Why should it trouble more?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
This is also only true if you assume that the only way of keeping his neighbourhood safe was to follow people around while armed.

I'll concede the "while armed" part, but that aside: other than having a police officer constantly present on every street corner, name a better one.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It says a lot more than 'I'm losing the fight now'. That's where I think you're misinterpreting it.
It relies on what someone believes. Or claims they believe.

As does ever self defense law in existence. And with good reason.

If you're going to say that self defense only applies when a reasonable objective consideration of the situation indicates the validity of self defense, you're going to rob an awful lot of people of the defence or leave them dead by the time they've completed the analysis.

I always get frustrated with the notion that arises, though, that all someone has to do is 'claim' something about their mental state and they win. That's simply not true. In order to win the jury or judge making factual findings has to BELIEVE your claim about your mental state.

In this particular case, it's the pieces of evidence that corroborate Zimmerman that make it possible to believe that he was in a situation - on the ground, head being hit into the ground - that makes a self defense claim viable. It's nonsense to suggest he could SUCCESSFULLY claim self defense no matter what. He could never have claimed it if Martin was shot in the back from 20 feet away.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Upthread I asked for the source of the statement that Zimmermann's gun was in a holster at the small of his back.

No one answered this, and I would still like to know.

Moo
Your question was answered on Page 7. Right above one of your posts, as it happens.

That analysis overused question marks to a high degree. About the only part that constitutes evidence is an old photo of Zimmerman.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think it shows that context is everything.

The context within which Zimmerman was acting was a neighborhood beset by recent burglaries, so many that a neighborhood watch was organized, which he was head of. He had every reason to be suspicious and to go out of his way to try to anticipate and prevent these burglaries.

And, of course, you can always recognize burglars by their dark skin.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But that local context is at odds with the larger context of a nation where that kind of suspicion is evidence of negative racial attitudes and stereotyping.

I think part of the "local context" was Zimmerman's equation of "unfamiliar black male" with "burglar". That certainly seemed to be the increasing pattern of his calls to police.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always get frustrated with the notion that arises, though, that all someone has to do is 'claim' something about their mental state and they win. That's simply not true. In order to win the jury or judge making factual findings has to BELIEVE your claim about your mental state.

Not just that. The jury also has to conclude that your belief was reasonable under the circumstances.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's partly that nobody really knows what happened, isn't it? OK, Zimmerman has his narrative, which was enough for an acquittal, but many people smell a rat, which may be their own prejudice, I suppose.

I suppose in a US context, it's got a lot of anxiety indicators - black kid shot, guns, self-defence laws, vigilantism, violence in the street, and tons more.

Plus, I think, the possibility of multiple interpretations, like a postmodern nightmare.

I think prejudice is exactly what it is. And by that I mean the case was prejudged on the basis of the first trickles of information about how a black kid on the way home from the store was shot.

That was the first narrative presented. It's a narrative that draws everyone to the same immediate conclusion.

But it's also a basic narrative focused entirely on Martin's experience that reduces his assailant to a shadowy figure whose only role is to turn up and pull the trigger. The word 'shot' on its own... What mental picture do you START with? If you're anything like me I bet you STARTED with a guy standing, well balanced, aiming carefully and firing. Not on his back on the ground.

As more detail emerged, that first narrative started becoming problematic.

I think the most alarming and disgusting demonstration of prejudging the case is when someone edited the phone transcript to have Zimmerman volunteer that the suspect was black WITHOUT being asked by the dispatcher first. That particular bit of editing showed me that someone didn't want me to consider other options, they wanted me kept on the track that this was a totally innocent kid gunned down by a monster.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That particular bit of editing showed me that someone didn't want me to consider other options, they wanted me kept on the track that this was a totally innocent kid gunned down by a monster.

In part, that's the standard that's maintained whenever a black American is killed by a white American. Unless the victim is "totally innocent", he's assumed to be 100% at fault. That's why there was so much effort by Zimmerman sympathizers to point out that Martin had smoked that devil weed marijuana and taken scarey-looking photos of himself. If he's not "totally innocent", that makes him the guilty one. As I mentioned earlier, this kind of case seems to be the only situation where people assume that evidence the victim managed to fight back against his killer is proof positive that he had it coming.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It is like a nightmarish flowchart, with multiple alternatives at every node, these alternatives being interpretations by various interested parties. I don't know why this seems nightmarish to me; I suppose because the multiple interpretations somehow mask the trauma of a culture, or maybe sub-culture, or maybe nation. So much pain and fear, despair, I suppose. A kid dying in the rain, oh fucking God.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That particular bit of editing showed me that someone didn't want me to consider other options, they wanted me kept on the track that this was a totally innocent kid gunned down by a monster.
In part, that's the standard that's maintained whenever a black American is killed by a white American. Unless the victim is "totally innocent", he's assumed to be 100% at fault. That's why there was so much effort by Zimmerman sympathizers to point out that Martin had smoked that devil weed marijuana and taken scarey-looking photos of himself. If he's not "totally innocent", that makes him the guilty one. As I mentioned earlier, this kind of case seems to be the only situation where people assume that evidence the victim managed to fight back against his killer is proof positive that he had it coming.

I agree that some pretty pointless stuff about Martin was thrown out there.

However, as I pointed out earlier, not ALL of it was irrelevant. Evidence that Martin was at least capable of being a threat was relevant to the credibility of Zimmerman's account of the confrontation.

Evidence of marijuana smoking had no probative value as far as I can see.

As for your 0/100% dichotomy, that's just yet again part of the mindset that this is a 2-way contest between 2 people, not a trial of one person by the state. In civil cases apportionment of responsibility is used to decide where the money goes. I don't think anyone has a fucking clue in a criminal case what a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split should mean in terms of verdict, so the whole exercise of deciding 'how much is Martin's fault' is futile and misconceived.

[ 19. July 2013, 16:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It is like a nightmarish flowchart, with multiple alternatives at every node, these alternatives being interpretations by various interested parties. I don't know why this seems nightmarish to me; I suppose because the multiple interpretations somehow mask the trauma of a culture, or maybe sub-culture, or maybe nation. So much pain and fear, despair, I suppose. A kid dying in the rain, oh fucking God.

I find it pretty upsetting as well. One life ended, a whole bunch of lives wrecked. None of which would be solved by the trial regardless of its outcome.

And yes, a whole lot being masked by discussion of a particular case.

For my part, I'd like see a lot less discussion of the importance of locking up whites (including people who don't normally fit that category) after they shoot blacks, and a lot more discussion about the importance of preventing blacks, and others, getting shot in the first place. A problem that the court system has little or no role in fixing.

[ 19. July 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It says a lot more than 'I'm losing the fight now'. That's where I think you're misinterpreting it.
It relies on what someone believes. Or claims they believe.
As does ever self defense law in existence. And with good reason.

It is not that one is legally allowed to defend oneself, it is the wording and presentation of particular instances of these laws. The current wave of American laws, starting with Florida's, give the shoot first, ask questions if forced to impression. And, indeed, this seems to be the application.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

He could never have claimed it if Martin was shot in the back from 20 feet away.

Not so sure about this myself.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

For my part, I'd like see a lot less discussion of the importance of locking up whites (including people who don't normally fit that category) after they shoot blacks, and a lot more discussion about the importance of preventing blacks, and others, getting shot in the first place. A problem that the court system has little or no role in fixing.

I think locking up anybody who kills unnecessarily is right and also think it right to emphasise motives such as racism. That said, I also would prefer prevention. Fewer dead people this way.
But I disagree that the court systems have little or no part. It remains that the police must be policed and the courts judged in their imbalanced application of law.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The link is to a case with an actual, established burglary. So no, I still think shooting Martin in the back from a distance would not have established a self defense claim.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

By the way, I think laws that allow you to kill to defend property rather than life are fundamentally wrong. But that's a separate issue arising in other cases than Zimmerman.

[ 19. July 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The Texas case I linked was successful because the man claimed self-defense.
And self-defense is the heart of most of the castle doctrine laws. Especially behind the rhetoric to get them passed.
And the men he shot were running away, danger past.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: For my part, it's because so many people are so insistent that because a white (or near enough) guy shot a black guy it must be a racist hate-crime murder, regardless of any evidence that may have been presented. It's like they want him to face the death penalty purely because of his race, and I hate that shit just as much as I hate it when the races are the other way around.

Out of curiosity, do you see anyone on this thread saying this?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The other thing that troubles me is if Zimmerman hadn't fired his gun, he may well be dead now.
It's arguable that under Floridan law as it stands, if Zimmerman had been killed, Martin would not have committed a crime even if everything had been as Zimmerman describes. That should trouble you more.
Why should it trouble more?

Because it suggests that what has been created is a set of situations in which you no longer are supposed to try and de-escalate if possible - and the state will stand aside and let whatever happens happen.

Which of course will be tweaked by existing social prejudices. So while a hypothetical Martin could have shot a hypothetical Zimmerman, it is highly like that it would have been portrayed along the lines of 'Gang Banger shoots Neighbourhood watchman'.

[ 19. July 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sorry, chris stiles, I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree. The current crop of US law will result in more death. And, yes, it will be applied unequally.

[ 19. July 2013, 19:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Upthread I asked for the source of the statement that Zimmermann's gun was in a holster at the small of his back.

No one answered this, and I would still like to know.

Moo
Your question was answered on Page 7. Right above one of your posts, as it happens.

That site shows a photograph of Zimmermann pointing to the location of his holster. It is on his back but nowhere near the small of his back. It is much more towards his side. The photographs of other people are irrelevant.

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

President Obama says, "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

I think this address to the White House press corps is one of his better performances of late.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
This is also only true if you assume that the only way of keeping his neighbourhood safe was to follow people around while armed.
I'll concede the "while armed" part, but that aside: other than having a police officer constantly present on every street corner, name a better one.

Um, watch from your window, alert your neighbors, and call the cops, like a Neighborhood Watch is supposed to do??

Tangentially, I really don't understand the whole "he was out in the rain!" thing. Lots of people like to walk in the rain, look at their surroundings, think, compose poetry, dance, sing, whatever.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Texas case I linked was successful because the man claimed self-defense.
And self-defense is the heart of most of the castle doctrine laws. Especially behind the rhetoric to get them passed.
And the men he shot were running away, danger past.

The link you provided says that he claimed a right to defend property, not life. That isn't self defense. That's something else.

And yes, the law in some parts of USA at least allows that. The so called Castle Doctrine allows that. I don't agree with the Castle Doctrine.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Tangentially, I really don't understand the whole "he was out in the rain!" thing. Lots of people like to walk in the rain, look at their surroundings, think, compose poetry, dance, sing, whatever.

But he was BLACK, and wearing a HOODIE and out in the RAIN. He must have been up to no good.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But he was also loitering in the rain. FFS, that practically convicts him there. We know that real men walk through the rain at a brisk pace; they are really going somewhere; their shoulders are square; they are breathing deep into their chest cavity, they are exuding American grit and purpose; they made our country great. But some black punk with his hood up, thinks he can loiter in my neighbourhood in the rain, with his fucking Skittles? Think again, mf.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
President Obama says, "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

I think this address to the White House press corps is one of his better performances of late.

I find very little to quibble with in what the President said. I think perhaps he thinks that the general public are more inclined towards nuance and shades of opinion than they really are, but that's because he's an intelligent lawyer, and (like most people) tends to think that the average person is a little more like him than he actually is. (And part of it is probably a nudge.)

And we shouldn't forget at all that whether or not the shooting was justified, and whether or not either man was scared of the other, the evening began with two people going shopping, and ended with one of them dead, and regardless of the legal rights and wrongs of the Zimmerman trial, it would be nice if we could find a way to have fewer dead people.

And we are getting there. In my experience, the younger generations are much less likely to assume that the woman present is the secretary or the junior than older folks are. Black people in the US have further to go, but even then, the assumption that that black man must be a criminal, or the waiter, springs less readily to today's young. We won't be there until you are no more likely to find black subdivisions and Latino subdivisions as you are to find Swedish ones.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

This is a feel-good story, but I also want to use it to make a point:

Two teens rescue 5 yr old girl from kidnapping

In case you can't see the videos or pictures, the little girl is Hispanic and white, the kidnapper was described as an older (50-70) white male with a limp, and the two teens were black boys.

When they all go to the mall tomorrow, who will be followed and watched by security and sales staff everywhere they go? Who will be treated with suspicion and fear by nearly everyone they meet? Who would have attracted George Zimmerman's attention?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And, of course, you can always recognize burglars by their dark skin.

Anybody ringing 999 in this country to report a pot-hole or a "yellow bike .... doing wheelies" would run the risk of being prosecuted for wasting police time.

I would like to know if Zimmerman ever saw unfamiliar while males and did not call the police but I guess we never will.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Posted in irony by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?

Actually, that's a good question.

Meanwhile...

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Bits of the first post I linked to are rather unpleasant in tone, so here is a rather less contentious one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Posted in irony by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?
Actually, that's a good question.

It is a good question, but that link is not a good answer. One case does not a conclusion make.
Black people, especially in the US, have a higher conviction rate as well as serve longer sentences for the same crimes.
The riot issue is also bullshit. When white people receive the same oppression and injustice, then we'll compare.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Posted in irony by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?
Actually, that's a good question.

It is a good question, but that link is not a good answer. One case does not a conclusion make.

I agree, which is why I posted the subsequent link.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Less contentious, but still not proving the point the author is trying to make.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

And what point is the author of the second link trying to make? I linked only to the second page of that post (in error), which may have slanted things: here is the first page. Worth reading the whole thing.

[ 22. July 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Those who are saying that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, he would have been convicted, should take a good look at the Scott case.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Those who are saying that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, he would have been convicted, should take a good look at the Scott case.

But he then goes on to list both the similarities and the dissimilarities between the cases. Doesn't sound like a slanted agenda to me. What's wrong with his analysis from your perspective?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Posted in irony by quetzalcoatl:
If Martin had had a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self-defence, he would have got off also, wouldn't he?
Actually, that's a good question.

It is a good question, but that link is not a good answer. One case does not a conclusion make.
Black people, especially in the US, have a higher conviction rate as well as serve longer sentences for the same crimes.
The riot issue is also bullshit. When white people receive the same oppression and injustice, then we'll compare.

But if "one case does not a conclusion make" applies to Scott, then it also applies to Zimmerman.

I agree that black people have a disproportionately high conviction rate & serve longer sentences. But just as it would be wrong to look at the Scott case and say "actually they don't", it's also wrong to take that statistic and say "well they must have got the Zimmerman verdict wrong then". Each case should be judged impartially on its own merits. That evidently doesn't happen everywhere. But I'm not convinced that it didn't happen with Zimmerman or Scott.

ISTM that the article wasn't saying that if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white Zimmerman would definitely not have been convicted, just that those who are claiming that he definitely would have been shouldn't necessarily be so sure of themselves, as there's at least been a similar precedent. Maybe he would have been, maybe he wouldn't. It seems fair to say that statistically he would have been more likely to have been convicted, which is a very wrong thing. But saying something is more likely is not the same as saying it definitely would happen.

Agree regarding the point about riots however.

----

To LeRoc, a couple of pages back you were saying that the law should change. I'm interested in which law(s). As far as I understood, you accepted and agreed that under US law it's right that Zimmerman was acquitted, just that you think the law is wrong and if it was right he'd be in prison.

If we take Zimmerman's story at face value (which it seems we have little alternative not to, given the lack of other evidence, and a certain amount of corrobative evidence), which of his actions do you think should have been illegal?

For me, it's very simple which action should be illegal: carrying a gun (or any weapon at all). This is simply another case of American gun laws causing unnecessary deaths. But I got the impression that you thought there was something more beyond that that Zimmerman evidently and probably did wrong. What would that specifically be?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: To LeRoc, a couple of pages back you were saying that the law should change. I'm interested in which law(s).

I agree with you about the gun laws. But yes, to me there is more.

During the course of this thread, I've been studying a bit the Dutch laws about self-defence. Not that I think the laws of my country are perfect, but I think they can give a good example how it is possible to have more restricted self-defence laws, while still leaving the possibility open for a person to defend him/herself.

IANAL, but the way I understand it, the spirit of our self-defence law is that it should really be a last resort. Under this law, you can claim self-defence if three conditions are fulfilled

You should have made a reasonable effort to avoid the confrontation¹
The force you used to defend yourself should be proportional with the threat
When you have special skills (an off-duty police office, a neighbourhood watch, or even a martial arts teacher...) then you're expected to know how to incapacitate your opponent without killing him (so claiming self-defence is more difficult for these people)

Note that under this law, it is still possible to claim self-defence when you killed someone who did a surprise attack on you in the street. But under this kind of law, Zimmerman would definitely have been convicted. The judge would weigh very heavily against him that the police advised him not to follow (giving him a chance to avoid the confrontation), but he did so anyway.

Interestingly, in the hypothetical case where Martin would have killed Zimmerman by hitting his head on the curb of the street, he wouldn't be able to claim self-defence either, if it's true that he had 4 minutes in which he could have gone home, but he didn't. I think that's only fair.

Of course, there are variations from country to country, and in the UK or other EU countries self-defence laws will be slightly different. But it's a big leap to the Stand Your Ground laws, which basically say the opposite of the first condition I mentioned above.

¹A provision is made here for domestic violence. The judge will take into account that the victim can't easy leave the house where her attacker lives, if she lives in the same house.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Those who are saying that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, he would have been convicted, should take a good look at the Scott case.
But he then goes on to list both the similarities and the dissimilarities between the cases. Doesn't sound like a slanted agenda to me. What's wrong with his analysis from your perspective?

He is making a conclusion based on one case.
The contention that, in the Zimmerman case, if race had been reversed the trial outcome might have been different is based on many years of data.
The Scott case is in New York. The Zimmerman case was in Florida. Despite visions of aging New Yorkers and party-town Miami, much of Florida is firmly in the South and all this implies.
The Cervini was engaged in a crime, Martin was not.
Did the Scott case receive much media attention? Most murders, even those which unambiguously violate civil rights, do not reach national news.

I am not saying I agree with Scott's actions, in fact, I do not.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The Cervini was engaged in a crime, Martin was not.

Not relevant. You don't get to shoot a man in the street because you think he's committing a crime. The jury found that (there was at least reasonable doubt that) Scott shot Cervini in self-defense, and similarly that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

quote:
Did the Scott case receive much media attention?

I don't remember hearing it.

quote:
Most murders, even those which unambiguously violate civil rights, do not reach national news.

And most uses of a weapon in self-defense (even where that weapon is used to kill the attacker) don't rate more than a half-page in the local press.

quote:
I am not saying I agree with Scott's actions, in fact, I do not.

OK. Roderick Scott saw three men breaking in to his neighbor's car. He called 911, then went out to yell at the men that he had done so, in an attempt to prevent further crime.

By his testimony, one of the men ran at him, yelling aggressively and moving so as to attack him. Scott fired his carry pistol in defense, killing Christopher Cervini.

Can you indicate which of Scott's actions you disagree with and whether you think they should be illegal, or just wrong?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The Cervini was engaged in a crime, Martin was not.
Not relevant.

But it is relevant. Scott shot criminals. This is not going to draw public outrage as much as shooting someone out for a stroll.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]
Can you indicate which of Scott's actions you disagree with and whether you think they should be illegal, or just wrong?

he created a situation in which a person was unecessarily killed. He should have placed the call and stayed home. I think this was wrong and should be illegal. The youths were breaking into cars, not hurting people. Crimes not deserving death.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:

Those who are saying that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, he WOULD have been convicted, should take a good look at the Scott case.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if race had been reversed the trial outcome MIGHT have been different

(Emphasis mine)

There is a difference between 'would' and 'might'. You're arguing against something the article isn't arguing for.

You're right in pointing out that one's race has a bearing on the likelihood of being convicted. The mistake is therefore trying to make a point by applying that to a statistic of one in the Zimmerman case. Why choose Zimmerman, and not any of the other very many white people who have been acquitted at some point?

When people say Zimmerman would have been convicted if he were black, it's unhelpful, firstly because we don't know that (though it would have been more likely), and secondly because it makes it sound like he only got off because he wasn't black, that the jury only looked at his skin colour & not the evidence, which isn't true.

---

LeRoc, thanks. Those laws make a lot of sense to me, and I'd rather live under them than the US laws. But they make sense in a society where it's not legal for people to carry weapons (specifically guns, leaving aside hunting etc.).

However, in a society that has the 2nd amendment, that says that people should be allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves, the playing field is different, and it seems right that the self-defence laws are different to reflect that.

I find it hard to look at the self-defence part of the Zimmerman case in isolation of the gun laws. If it was illegal to carry guns, then Zimmerman would probably have stayed in his car. Because he felt he had the safety net of a gun, he got out. I don't think that you could (or that it would be right to) change the self-defence laws in America to be the same as Holland while there's still the gun laws there are. Hence why I think the problem is the gun laws, not the self-defence laws. Get rid of guns, then change the self-defence laws.

Hopefully that would change the vigilante/hero culture of taking things into one's own hands too. ISTM that both Zimmerman and Martin suffered from this. Zimmerman for trying to be the hero trailing and reporting Martin when he was doing nothing wrong, and Martin for wanting to confront Zimmerman.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is relevant. Scott shot criminals. This is not going to draw public outrage as much as shooting someone out for a stroll.

Relevant to creating public outrage - sure. Relevant to whether he committed a crime? No. Equally, it makes no difference to the Zimmerman case whether he saw Trayvon Martin walking home from the store, or climbing out of someone's window.

quote:

he created a situation in which a person was unecessarily killed. He should have placed the call and stayed home.

So it is your contention that if I see someone committing a crime - picking someone's pocket maybe, or shoplifting, it should be illegal for me to yell "oi, you!"? For me to effect a citizen's arrest? Or is it only if I end up trapping myself in a corner I can't retreat from that you think I've done something illegal.

What about if I see someone hitting and old lady and trying to snatch her handbag? She's probably not actually going to die - do I have to stay in my house then, or am I allowed to confront her attacker?

[ 23. July 2013, 08:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Those who are saying that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, he would have been convicted, should take a good look at the Scott case.
But he then goes on to list both the similarities and the dissimilarities between the cases. Doesn't sound like a slanted agenda to me. What's wrong with his analysis from your perspective?
He is making a conclusion based on one case.

Frankly, I don't see him making any generalising conclusion in that article at all - I think goperryrevs said it best above:

quote:
ISTM that the article wasn't saying that if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white Zimmerman would definitely not have been convicted, just that those who are claiming that he definitely would have been shouldn't necessarily be so sure of themselves, as there's at least been a similar precedent. Maybe he would have been, maybe he wouldn't.

That's it, really.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
... Zimmerman would probably have stayed in his car.

The evidence indicates that Zimmermann was not in his car when the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that.

Moo

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
... Zimmerman would probably have stayed in his car.
The evidence indicates that Zimmermann was not in his car when the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that.

Moo

Sure. I meant that, if he didn't have a gun with him at all (i.e. if guns were illegal), then he'd have been less likely to get out of it at all (whether it was before or after the dispatcher told him). The possibility of a confrontation in the dark unarmed is surely psychologically less appealing than the possibility of a confrontation when you have a gun to make you feel 'safer'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
... Zimmerman would probably have stayed in his car.
The evidence indicates that Zimmermann was not in his car when the dispatcher told him he didn't need to do that.

Moo

Irrelevant, he still should not have followed. But, what evidence is there that he did not hear?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But, what evidence is there that he did not hear?

It's not a question of what he did or did not hear. He had his cellphone with him when he got out of the car. He said he had lost sight of Martin and was looking for a street sign so he could tell the police exactly where they should come.

As I have said upthread, apparently the dispatchers never tell the Neighborhood Watch volunteers what to do. The explanation I have heard is so that if the volunteer gets hurt, the dispatcher has no liability.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oh, apologies, I misunderstood. He could still have returned to the vehicle.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am not defending Zimmermann for racist reasons. I am defending him because the black community in Sanford considered him their friend. Among the character witnesses at the trial were two black women who greatly appreciated Zimmermann's support when they were crime victims.

One of them was at home with her child when some men burst into her house. She grabbed her child, ran upstairs and locked the door to the bedroom. The home invaders tried to get into the locked room but failed.

Zimmermann did not arrive until after the invaders had left, but he helped the woman get the locks on her doors repaired and reinforced. He told her she could phone him anytime and he invited her to his house for dinner.

The other woman was too disabled to make it to the trial in person, so she testified by remote. Her house had been broken into while she was there. She spoke of Zimmermann's support and practical help.

After the verdict there were protests in many places. One was announced for Sanford, but almost no one showed up. The black people who knew Zimmermann knew he was not racist.

I know that racist crimes occur far too often in America, but this was not one of them.

I am not saying anything good about Zimmermann's judgment.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am not implying you are racist, Moo.
Regarding racism in general, and possibly Zimmerman, it is not an on or off thing.
As I have mentioned before, I have spent much time trying to tell black people that white people are not inherently evil. Many of them work with white people and socialise with them and would never think to tell the white people that they mistrust them, but they do. I give examples but I am accused of being willfully blind.
I worked with a man who chastised another for his attitude towards Mexicans. Yet he has said far worse things about them himself.
There is plenty of room between stringing people up from lampposts and complete lack of racism. Here is a blog post which goes towards countering Zimmerman's black friends as a mitigating factor.

If one thinks this person a potential criminal, but not this one...

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

George Zimmerman could have hundreds of black friends. It doesn't change the facts that he thought his neighbour's son was suspicious, followed him because "These assholes always get away", and shot him. Who were the assholes? What did they have in common with Trayvon? They were young, male, and black. (Oh, yeah, and they wear hoodies, just like millions of other people of all ages.)

I believe a racist (and ageist and sexist OMG a trifecta!) assumption* contributed to Zimmerman's suspicions and his decision to chase the boy. Trayvon had every right to be there and there is no evidence that he was intending to commit any crime before Zimmerman started following him. As someone living in the neighbourhood, even temporarily, he deserved the protection of the Neighbourhood Watch, not suspicion and harassment. Zimmerman may be not guilty, but he surely did initiate the events that led to an innocent boy's death and -- depending on how you believe the confrontation happened -- bears some degree of responsibility for that death. Maybe not 100%, maybe not even 50% but certainly not zero. "Neighbourhood Watch Shoots Neighbour" is not how the program is supposed to work.

----
*I'm trying to be careful not to call anyone a racist, but to refer to racist statements or ideas or whatever. Apologies if I screw up.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I believe a racist (and ageist and sexist OMG a trifecta!) assumption* contributed to Zimmerman's suspicions and his decision to chase the boy.

<snip>

Zimmerman may be not guilty, but he surely did initiate the events that led to an innocent boy's death and -- depending on how you believe the confrontation happened -- bears some degree of responsibility for that death.

I've just reviewed this long thread on my return from shore leave. I think Shipmates have done a very good job in illuminating the case and debating the issue - I've got a lot more out of this thread than I have from the news reports. The heat in the debate is very understandable and has kind of underlined the wider significance of the case.

Soror Magna's words above look like a very good summary to me. On the basis of the evidence and the criterion of reasonable doubt, I do not think a guilty of murder verdict would have been right. But it seems quite correct to observe that he was guilty of a crap piece of Neighbourhood Watching and his motivations look highly questionable to me as well, given his track record. So he bears some responsibility for the death. ISTM that's about as far as the evidence takes us.

[ 24. July 2013, 06:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
President Obama says, "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Wow. Over here, ok. We had a Green foreign affairs minister who was photographed beating policemen with bats and spades in his "wild youth". Not to mention some of our politicians in the 1950s...
Being informed however that Barack Obama once was something of a drug taking hoodie, repeatedly relegated from school, skulking and looking for fights surprises me. Is this the same country where Bill Clinton got grilled over the alleged inhalation or not of marijuana? Have the US become so forgiving all of a sudden?

Btw, has Bill Lee, the police official who got fired for not arresting Zimmerman been rehabilitated yet? Or is he a racist, too?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one thinks this person a potential criminal, but not this one...

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman would not consider the second person suspicious if he was acting in exactly the same way Martin was?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The only evidence is that he doesn't seem to have called in any people to 911 who weren't black per lilbuddha's link.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

You know, it's perfectly possible for two people to have entirely different perceptions of the same situation.

Once, after I told off a staffer for something she did wrong, she went to my boss and accused me of racism. I made no mention of her race in the course of her telling-off, but she nevertheless "heard" racist remarks in everything I said.

Her evidence for my racism was this: a white staffer was doing the same wrong thing she was, and I didn't tell off the white staffer.

Problem was, I wasn't aware the white staffer was up to no good; that's why I didn't tell him off.

I've thought this over many times since. Is it possible that I actually am racist, albeit unconsciously? Was I scrutinizing her behavior due to her race, while not scrutinizing the other staffer's behavior because of his? If so, I was unaware of it.

Now, to be fair, she assumed I had known all about her co-worker's behavior; I hadn't. Once I found out about it, I did tell him off. But from her perspective, he only got told off after/because she complained to the boss about my racism.

AFAICT, she remained a victim of racism in her own mind as long as she worked with us. AFAICT, she was not.

How do we determine who's right? Who gets to decide what racism is, how it's expressed, and whether it's present?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Who gets to decide what racism is, how it's expressed, and whether it's present?

In Florida, the person with the gun decides...

--Tom Clune

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And that decision is often final.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Here is a quote from the blog lilBudddha linked to:

quote:
What began as annoying 911 operators with pointless complaints escalated to notifying the authorities any time he saw a black male he didn’t know.

Does anyone know how often, if ever, Zimmermann's suspicions were justified? If they were frequently justified, Zimmermann was right to make these reports. How does the blogger know that he phoned the authorities every time he saw a black male he didn't know?

There are some unproven assumptions here.

Moo

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The only evidence is that he doesn't seem to have called in any people to 911 who weren't black per lilbuddha's link.

That's only evidence of racism if you assume that there were equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The only evidence is that he doesn't seem to have called in any people to 911 who weren't black per lilbuddha's link.
That's only evidence of racism if you assume that there were equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Considering how many months were covered, and considering that I have heard that African-Americans are a decisive minority there, the odds seem to me that a person as nosy as Zimmerman was would have seen something being done imperfect* by a non-black person. That is only a statement of odds though, so maybe only black people do unusual things in that town.

*At least as imperfect as being rained on

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is a quote from the blog lilBudddha linked to:
quote:
What began as annoying 911 operators with pointless complaints escalated to notifying the authorities any time he saw a black male he didn’t know.
Does anyone know how often, if ever, Zimmermann's suspicions were justified? If they were frequently justified, Zimmermann was right to make these reports. How does the blogger know that he phoned the authorities every time he saw a black male he didn't know?

There are some unproven assumptions here.

But they're fairly reasonable ones. We've got one well-examined example (Trayvon Martin) where Zimmerman's supposed crime-detecting sixth sense was just plain wrong. There don't seem to be any examples of him calling in any "unfamiliar white males", something fairly notable in a community ~50% white. Did Zimmerman personally know all the white people in his neighborhood, who never had unfamiliar (to Zimmerman) relatives come for a visit and who never ventured out in the rain?

Given the amount of spin Zimmerman's defense tried to put on irrelevancies (e.g. Martin's past marijuana use), I think we can be fairly certain that if a clear case existed where Zimmerman's suspicions had been justified, we'd have heard about it by now.

In short, the assumptions that have to packed in to your speculation that Zimmerman just happened to run across a whole bunch of black criminals and zero white ones are far more tenuous and counterintuitive than than the observation that one of the markers Zimmerman used as an identifier of criminality was blackness.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There are some unproven assumptions here.
But they're fairly reasonable ones.

<snip>

Given the amount of spin Zimmerman's defense tried to put on irrelevancies (e.g. Martin's past marijuana use), I think we can be fairly certain that if a clear case existed where Zimmerman's suspicions had been justified, we'd have heard about it by now.

In short, the assumptions that have to packed in to your speculation that Zimmerman just happened to run across a whole bunch of black criminals and zero white ones are far more tenuous and counterintuitive than than the observation that one of the markers Zimmerman used as an identifier of criminality was blackness.

That's pretty much the way it looked to me too.

But none of that makes him a murderer, of course.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The only evidence is that he doesn't seem to have called in any people to 911 who weren't black per lilbuddha's link.
That's only evidence of racism if you assume that there were equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Actually, to get a 50% chance of generating that 46-0 breakdown you'd have to assume that the number of non-black people acting at least as suspiciously as Trayvon Martin (wearing a hoodie in the rain) is about 1.5% of the sample set. In other words, a rough ratio of ~67 suspicious black people for every non-black person fitting Zimmerman's definition of "suspicious".

To get a 5% chance of just coincidentally getting that 46-0 breakdown (5% is a rough rule-of-thumb value below which statisticians usually assume selection bias) you'd have to assume about a 16:1 ratio of black suspicious people:non-black suspicious people.

That's just a rough, back-of-the envelope calculation, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that you don't need to assume "equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously" to demonstrate Zimmerman's selection bias, just a ratio lower than 16:1.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
There don't seem to be any examples of him calling in any "unfamiliar white males", something fairly notable in a community ~50% white.

Is this a figure for the city of Sanford or the community where Zimmermann lived? I haven't been able to find statistics for Zimmermann's community. If that is what this is, where did you find it?

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
There don't seem to be any examples of him calling in any "unfamiliar white males", something fairly notable in a community ~50% white.
Is this a figure for the city of Sanford or the community where Zimmermann lived? I haven't been able to find statistics for Zimmermann's community. If that is what this is, where did you find it?

Moo

It's for the local community, not Sanford as a whole. I got it from this website. I haven't bothered to double-check their figures against census block data.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's just a rough, back-of-the envelope calculation, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that you don't need to assume "equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously" to demonstrate Zimmerman's selection bias, just a ratio lower than 16:1.

I won't argue with your numbers, but my point was pretty much that if the fact that none of the people he reported were white was because there weren't any white people acting suspiciously to start with, he's not a racist.

What was he supposed to do? Stop reporting suspicious characters until one of them happened to be white, in order to even up the numbers a bit?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's just a rough, back-of-the envelope calculation, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that you don't need to assume "equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously" to demonstrate Zimmerman's selection bias, just a ratio lower than 16:1.
I won't argue with your numbers, but my point was pretty much that if the fact that none of the people he reported were white was because there weren't any white people acting suspiciously to start with, he's not a racist.

Is that a reasonable assumption to make, though? That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's just a rough, back-of-the envelope calculation, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that you don't need to assume "equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously" to demonstrate Zimmerman's selection bias, just a ratio lower than 16:1.
I won't argue with your numbers, but my point was pretty much that if the fact that none of the people he reported were white was because there weren't any white people acting suspiciously to start with, he's not a racist.

What was he supposed to do? Stop reporting suspicious characters until one of them happened to be white, in order to even up the numbers a bit?

Prior to changing patterns, he was reporting to the emergency response numberthe suspicious behaviour of missing tarmac. Hardly behaviour suggesting discernment.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?

That very few of the local population ever loitered in the rain I can well believe.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?
That very few of the local population ever loitered in the rain I can well believe.

Very few introduce themselves to others by jumping out from behind bushes for some ground and pound action, too.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?
That very few of the local population ever loitered in the rain I can well believe.

But I very much doubt that all those who did loiter in the rain were black simply because there is no reason why African-Americans like getting rained on more than any other race.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But I very much doubt that all those who did loiter in the rain were black simply because there is no reason why African-Americans like getting rained on more than any other race.

Actually, I could well believe that only one person did so. Like you say, most people don't like getting wet and so will hurry on to wherever they're going.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But I very much doubt that all those who did loiter in the rain were black simply because there is no reason why African-Americans like getting rained on more than any other race.
Actually, I could well believe that only one person did so. Like you say, most people don't like getting wet and so will hurry on to wherever they're going.

Unless they've managed to master the idea "if I wait under this overhang, maybe it will stop". Truly advanced thinking, that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Like you say, most people don't like getting wet and so will hurry on to wherever they're going.

I had a dog who loved running in the surf and splashing about. Yet when I gave him a bath, he looked at me as if I had stolen his favourite bone.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, but teenagers love loitering in the rain.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?
That very few of the local population ever loitered in the rain I can well believe.
Very few introduce themselves to others by jumping out from behind bushes for some ground and pound action, too.

Oh you mean from behind the bushes that didn't exist:http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/02/george-zimmerman-trial-inconsistencies-zimmerman-story

and the headpounding that was fixed with a couple of plasters - no concusion nor a visit to the hospital needed. Incredible that!

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but teenagers love loitering in the rain.

I loved walking around in the rain well into my mid-20s. I still enjoy it in climates where it's warm and rainy in the summer -- a walk in a light rain on a warm afternoon is nice.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Very few introduce themselves to others by jumping out from behind bushes for some ground and pound action, too.

That's a good point. Very few do. And yet Zimmerman says Martin did. It's almost as if Zimmerman were lying about it to boost his side of the story. But it's not as if Zimmerman had a motive for doing that, is it?

[ 24. July 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That in a neighborhood that was ~20% black, no non-black ever took a walk in the rain? Or wore a hoodie?
That very few of the local population ever loitered in the rain I can well believe.
Very few introduce themselves to others by jumping out from behind bushes for some ground and pound action, too.
That's a good point. Very few do. And yet Zimmerman says Martin did. Still, is it more likely that Zimmerman had a motive for lying about what happened?

According to Good's testimony he saw Martin on top doing the ground and pound.

article

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Once again for emphasis, eyewitness are unreliable. The vast majority of people do not make reliable eyewitnesses. Test after test, trial re-examination after trial re-examination confirms this.
Second, the more detail a non-expert puts into their story, the more suspect it should be.
Think less Sherlock Holmes and more Murder by Death.
Does this mean Good is wrong? No, it means his testimony is less indicative than it might appear.
And irrelevant regardless. It is the instigator of the fight who would be at fault, not whoever is winning at the moment of observation.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Once again for emphasis, eyewitness are unreliable. The vast majority of people do not make reliable eyewitnesses. Test after test, trial re-examination after trial re-examination confirms this.
Second, the more detail a non-expert puts into their story, the more suspect it should be.
Think less Sherlock Holmes and more Murder by Death.
Does this mean Good is wrong? No, it means his testimony is less indicative than it might appear.
And irrelevant regardless. It is the instigator of the fight who would be at fault, not whoever is winning at the moment of observation.

He's more reliable than you and I've yet to see any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
...I've yet to see any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

There were no signs on Martin's or Zimmermann's body that Zimmermann hit Martin at all. There were clear signs on Zimmermann's body and Martin's hands that Martin hit Zimmermann.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
He's more reliable than you and I've yet to see any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

You have no evidence or indication that he is more or less reliable than I am, only that he is more likely to have seen something in this instance.
There is no evidence beyond Zimmerman's testimony regarding who threw the first punch.
First punch is irrelevant, regardless. First punch is not always the instigator and, as has been mentioned, not necessarily relevant under Florida law.

[ 24. July 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[Zimmerman]'s more reliable than you and I've yet to see any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.

I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile your assertion that George Zimmerman's testimony is reliable with your earlier post that he's willing to tell legally convenient lies.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You have no evidence or indication that he is more or less reliable than I am, only that he is more likely to have seen something in this instance.
There is no evidence beyond Zimmerman's testimony regarding who threw the first punch.
First punch is irrelevant, regardless. First punch is not always the instigator and, as has been mentioned, not necessarily relevant under Florida law.

The jury sure seems to have believed him.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[Zimmerman]'s more reliable than you and I've yet to see any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch.
I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile your assertion that George Zimmerman's testimony is reliable with your earlier post that he's willing to tell legally convenient lies.

My link is about Good's testimony.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The jury sure seems to have believed him.

Maybe; maybe not. The jury at one point had questions about the manslaughter charge, did they not? To me that suggests they were at least considering that penalty at some point.

What the jury had, bottom line, was substantial reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's culpability under the law as it now stands for murder in the 2nd degree or for manslaughter. Given the prosecution's dismal job of making their case against Zimmerman (and the equally crap police investigation, due (IMO) to the crap SYG law, the jury had little choice.

And that, my friends, is exactly the problem with SYG laws. Strip away racism, if any; strip away the whole legal standing, if any, of neighborhood watch team captains. Strip away questions of who started "it" (whatever "it" may be), and here's what you've got: legally defensible slaughter.

Two people, each with a "right" to be where they are; neither with a duty to retreat where retreat is possible when things turn threatening; couple all that to concealed-carry laws in all 50 of these soon-to-be Disunited States (since we'll all apparently be in shootouts with each other) and it's a Full Employment Act for criminal defense attorneys and (where cases have survivors) emergency room doctors forever.

Why don't we just re-institute the duel?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

SYG was not in play in the Zimmerman trial, was it? article

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
SYG was not in play in the Zimmerman trial, was it? article

As already noted at least twice previously on this thread, SYG formed part of the judge's instructions to the jury.

SYG was not cited by the defense.

SYG was possibly a factor in the initial investigation by the police. Had SYG not been on the books, it's possible (IANAL) that the original investigation would have been handled somewhat differently.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

One of the problems with a "Stand Your Ground" type of law is not merely when it can be invoked in court, but in the influence over actions in the initial instance.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Wow. Over here, ok. We had a Green foreign affairs minister who was photographed beating policemen with bats and spades in his "wild youth". Not to mention some of our politicians in the 1950s...
Being informed however that Barack Obama once was something of a drug taking hoodie, repeatedly relegated from school, skulking and looking for fights surprises me. Is this the same country where Bill Clinton got grilled over the alleged inhalation or not of marijuana? Have the US become so forgiving all of a sudden?

Well, Pres. Obama was pretty open about that, before he even ran. I believe the gist of it was in one or the other of his books. (Which I haven't read.) I think it was wise. Basic rule of PR: if something negative about you might come out, be the first to tell it--that will give you a chance to shape and control it. From what I understand, ALL the adults in his immediate family had substance abuse problems. (Not just his dad.) And I suspect he tended to feel like an outsider: mixed race; living in various cultures; absent dad; (sometimes?) strained relationship with his mom; abusive Indonesian step-dad, who hit his mom and was also an alcoholic; grandma told him she was afraid of black men on the streets, etc. I gather that Michelle helped him sort out the substance abuse.

I'm not sure if Obama got into trouble as a teen, besides smoking pot. I think his self-comparison with Trayvon was about being a troubled young man, of African ancestry, who experienced being profiled and followed--as many/most African-American men do.

Clinton, OTOH, is a born politician and lawyer, and delights in getting away with stuff.

And Dubya had a substance abuse background, too.

We probably don't need to get into Pres. Grant's extremely heavy drinking. That was a different time.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Why don't we just re-institute the duel?

Because it's not about two people with a mutual grudge duking it out. The more correct analogy would be to re-institute lynching.

Which I guess we have.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
The only evidence is that he doesn't seem to have called in any people to 911 who weren't black per lilbuddha's link.
That's only evidence of racism if you assume that there were equal numbers of white/black people acting suspiciously. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Shouldn't one ask what percentage of crimes detectable and preventable by public observation (not tax evasion) was committed by white, resp. black people? Maybe suspicion towards young male blacks is simply a matter of experience and common sense. And why does no one complain of sexism and ageism when almost exclusively young(ish) males are reported as suspicious?

In Frankfurt about 30-40% of burglaries are committed by gypsy children under 14. There are only a few thousand gypsies in the town with a few hundred children. So if you see a bunch of them in your residential neighbourhood you'd have to be statistically incompetent not to keep an eye open. But you'd have to brave the automatic charge of "racist profiling". Few people dare to and so burglaries increase year after year.
(But we don't have neighbourhood watches here, let alone armed ones).

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
And why does no one complain of sexism and ageism when almost exclusively young(ish) males are reported as suspicious?

You may have a point here.

Many years ago when my husband was 17 he had very long hair (still does) he drove a brand new car. He was stopped almost weekly by the police. His name is John Smith so he got many rude comments too and was hauled out of the car by police convinced they had a wrong 'un. It gave him great pleasure to produce his driving license and insurance documents, but he rarely received an apology. This hasn't happened since he turned 20.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Sylvander, point! Though since I was talking about their gated community I doubt stats are available to answer that question.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sylvander,

Assuming for the moment your statistics are correct, it does not apply to Sanford, Florida. Sanford is part of greater Orlando. Orlando, which has a population of over 200,000 people, is ~28% black. What are the odds that a majority of those nearly 60,000 people are criminals?

[ 25. July 2013, 11:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Shouldn't one ask what percentage of crimes detectable and preventable by public observation (not tax evasion) was committed by white, resp. black people? Maybe suspicion towards young male blacks is simply a matter of experience and common sense. And why does no one complain of sexism and ageism when almost exclusively young(ish) males are reported as suspicious?

Your point about age and gender is taken.

Regarding the rest, the problem lies in collecting and interpreting statistics.

For every one white male in U.S. prisons, there are 6 to 7 black males (supporting link provided upthread). What does this tell us?

1. There are 6-7 times as many black males in U.S. society than white ones? General population census data, if reliable and correctly interpreted, suggest otherwise.

2. Black males are 6-7 times more likely to commit crime than white males?

3. Black males are 6-7 times more likely to be convicted of crimes of which they're accused than white males?

4. Black males are 6-7 times more likely to be suspected/accused of crimes than white males?

5. U.S. society has a serious problem with racism which gets expressed at least partially through its criminal justice system?

6. Some combination of the above?

If Gypsy kids where you are get suspected first, they'll also get observed first, which means they'll get arrested more often, which will likely lead to their being convicted more often. How many unsolved crimes are there for which non-Gypsy kids might be responsible?

For obvious reasons, we can't collect data about the perpetrators of unsolved crimes. Until all groups of similar ages/sexes get suspected and observed equally, how can we collect reliable data about the races/ethnicity of perpetrators?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Even were it proven black males were 6-7 times more likely to commit crimes, my point was anyone in Sanford was statistically more likely to encounter law-abiding Black folk than criminal Black folk.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As already noted at least twice previously on this thread, SYG formed part of the judge's instructions to the jury.

SYG was not cited by the defense.

The prosecution said it wasn't a SYG case and it appears the jury didn't think it was, either. Either way, it seems to me no one should have to take a beating and it appears the jury agreed.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Regarding the rest, the problem lies in collecting and interpreting statistics.

For every one white male in U.S. prisons, there are 6 to 7 black males (supporting link provided upthread). What does this tell us?

1. There are 6-7 times as many black males in U.S. society than white ones? General population census data, if reliable and correctly interpreted, suggest otherwise.

2. Black males are 6-7 times more likely to commit crime than white males?

3. Black males are 6-7 times more likely to be convicted of crimes of which they're accused than white males?

Many black men in prison have been convicted of crimes of violence against other black people. I am not sure the black community would be better off if these men were walking the streets.

I still want to know whether the police responded to Zimmermann's calls about suspicious black males. I also want to know what they found. If, in fact, they found that crimes were being committed or had been committed, then Zimmermann's calls were justified.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many black men in prison have been convicted of crimes of violence against other black people. I am not sure the black community would be better off if these men were walking the streets.

First, I have drawn no distinction among the specific crimes or crime victims for which a racial minority of the population has been incarcerated for a staggering majority of all crimes committed. Actual perpetrators of black-on-black violence are no less guilty than actual perpetrators of white-on-white or white-on-black or black-on-white violence. I am not advocating against the conviction or for the release of individuals of any race who have been legitimately accused, fairly tried, and correctly found guilty.

The question I’m raising concerns the legitimacy of the conviction rate. Conviction is not always a reliable indication of guilt. I refer you to the The Innocence Project, which has helped to exonerate 310 individuals since 2000. Of these 310, 193 were black.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I still want to know whether the police responded to Zimmermann's calls about suspicious black males. I also want to know what they found. If, in fact, they found that crimes were being committed or had been committed, then Zimmermann's calls were justified.

It's a legitimate question, and I suspect we'd all like to have some answers. I'm not holding my breath.

[ 25. July 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Shouldn't one ask what percentage of crimes detectable and preventable by public observation (not tax evasion) was committed by white, resp. black people?

As noted above, the percentage would have to be 94% or higher to get Zimmerman's 46-0 call record without selection bias. It would have to be about 98.5% to get a 50/50 chance of getting that 46-0 record by pure chance. Are you willing to posit that there is virtually no other racial or ethnic group committing any observable crimes in Sanford, FL?

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Many black men in prison have been convicted of crimes of violence against other black people.

But most black men in U.S. prisons have been convicted of non-violent drug offenses, the same as every other racial or ethnic group in U.S. prisons. Given that virtually every study ever made of the subject shows nearly identical use rates for illegal drugs between black and white Americans, systematic selection bias has to be considered as at least a possible explanation for their much higher imprisonment rate.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I still want to know whether the police responded to Zimmermann's calls about suspicious black males. I also want to know what they found. If, in fact, they found that crimes were being committed or had been committed, then Zimmermann's calls were justified.

Yes, if only you had access to some kind of world wide network of information, you might be able to answer that question! Perhaps something with the ability to search and filter that information.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
... In Frankfurt about 30-40% of burglaries are committed by gypsy children under 14. There are only a few thousand gypsies in the town with a few hundred children. So if you see a bunch of them in your residential neighbourhood you'd have to be statistically incompetent not to keep an eye open. But you'd have to brave the automatic charge of "racist profiling". Few people dare to and so burglaries increase year after year. ...

No, it's probably because the non-gypsy 60-70% of burglars are able to take advantage of people's misdirected attention.

The fact is that profiling will lead to suspecting innocent people and ignoring guilty ones. Always. If one doesn't care about human rights violations, one should at least care about bad policing.

(BTW I did address age and sex here.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I still want to know whether the police responded to Zimmermann's calls about suspicious black males. I also want to know what they found. If, in fact, they found that crimes were being committed or had been committed, then Zimmermann's calls were justified.
Yes, if only you had access to some kind of world wide network of information, you might be able to answer that question! Perhaps something with the ability to search and filter that information.

I had a look. The Wikipedia page relating to this incident has this to say:

quote:
Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burgled. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

For those who may be interested, the linked page also has two photographs of Zimmerman's injuries just after the incident.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Interesting. But helpful? I'm not sure.

There's no info about the first young man's race/ethnicity in the quote. I also note he's referred to as a "suspect." What was he suspected of? Is peering into the windows of a vacant apartment a crime?

IANAL; it may be in Sanford, FL. It may even be a crime where I live. I am not young or black or male, but will here confess that I have occasionally peered into the windows of vacant places to see if I might want to call the landlord about renting the place.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I am not young or black or male, but will here confess that I have occasionally peered into the windows of vacant places to see if I might want to call the landlord about renting the place.

Have you then been caught five days later with stolen goods in your bag, indicating that you were almost certainly peering into said windows in search of something to steal?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Whoops; I really should read for comprehension.

So Z fingered the arrested young black male as the peeper in the first incident. That sounds pretty damning.

However, I refer readers to lilBuddha's info on eyewitness ID, and also to The Innocence Project info on this topic, linked to above.

Did Z know the guy had been arrested with stolen goods when he ID'd the guy? If so, might this possibly have influenced his memory?

[ 25. July 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So, what is your point, Marvin?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, what is your point, Marvin?

I think his point is that if even one of Zimmerman's calls to the police were justified then they all must have been justified (instead of bearing in mind that proverb about stopped clocks). So if Zimmerman's crime-sense is truly infallible, that means Trayvon Martin actually was a burglar, the whole story of him visiting family in the neighborhood is a fabrication, and he had it coming.

This dovetails with other poster's implicit assumptions that virtually all (~95-99%) crimes* are committed by black perpetrators. This is combined with reversing the conditional to assume that if 95-99% of criminals are black, it follows that 95-99% of blacks are criminals, so assuming Trayvon Martin was a criminal of some sort or other was just common sense and, once again, he had it coming.

--------------------
*Or at least all crimes of the sort detectable by neighborhood foot patrols.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if Zimmerman's crime-sense is truly infallible, that means Trayvon Martin actually was a burglar, the whole story of him visiting family in the neighborhood is a fabrication, and he had it coming.

No, he could have legitimately been staying in the community and still be a burglar. The two are not incompatible.

quote:
This dovetails with other poster's implicit assumptions that virtually all (~95-99%) crimes* are committed by black perpetrators.

I don't see these implicit assumptions. Would you please spell them out for me.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I'll attempt this, though Croesos will be along shortly to make mincemeat of my efforts.

Let's look at Sylvander's assertion that 30-40% of burglaries in Frankfurt are committed by Gypsy kids under the age of 14. Sylvander says:

quote:
There are only a few thousand gypsies in the town with a few hundred children. So if you see a bunch of them in your residential neighbourhood you'd have to be statistically incompetent not to keep an eye open.

The implicit assumption is that, despite there being only a "few hundred" Gypsy children in town, you'd be stupid not to fear being burglarized when a bunch of Gypsy children show up on your street.

But let's examine this a little more closely. For ease of computation, let's say there are 200 Gypsy kids in town. Let's also say there are 200 burglaries annually, and that 80 of these burglaries (40%) are attributable to the Gypsy kids.

How many Gypsy kids are doing these 80 burglaries? Even if every one of these 80 thefts was committed by one single different Gypsy kid, you'd have a minority -- 80 -- of little delinquent Gypsies and a majority -- 120 -- of law-abiding Gypsy kids.

And isn't it far more likely that the 80 burglaries are actually attributable to a much smaller number -- say, 20 Gypsy kids who commit 4 burglaries each?

So in fact it's statistically competent to assume that a bunch of Gypsy kids in your street are simply out for their afternoon constitutional. It's statistically INcompetent to assume you're in danger of being burglarized.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Frankfort main has nearly 3/4 of a million people. The larger urban area over 2 million and the surrounding metropolitan region over 6 million.
Even should those Gypsy children be very active in their burglary trade, those numbers are miniscule. Frankfurt would be nearly the safest city on earth. Instead....

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

And isn't it far more likely that the 80 burglaries are actually attributable to a much smaller number -- say, 20 Gypsy kids who commit 4 burglaries each?

So in fact it's statistically competent to assume that a bunch of Gypsy kids in your street are simply out for their afternoon constitutional. It's statistically INcompetent to assume you're in danger of being burglarized.

Given the numbers you made up, your conclusion is warranted. But aren't I just as free to make up different numbers - like instead of there being 200 burglaries annually, there being 20,000 annually, with an average of 40 burglaries per gypsy kid? It's still possible that you could have 20 kids committing 400 burglaries each, but you start to run into some time constraints.

Without some real numbers, the entire discussion is meaningless.

But even if we take your numbers at face value, we ended up with 20 burglars out of 200 gypsy kids, or a 10% probability that a randomly selected gypsy kid is a burglar.

If you told me that there was a 10% chance that the man walking past my house was a burglar, I think it would at least be worth checking that the windows were secured, don't you?

Sylvander actually described "a bunch" of kids. What's a bunch - half a dozen? The chance of 6 randomly selected gypsy kids from your model all being non-burglars is close to 0.9^6 (53%), so there's a 47% chance that there's at least one burglar amongst them.

This model rather strains the limits of believability, though. If the set of gypsy kids contains some burglars and some honest kids, isn't it more likely that burglars will tend to associate with other burglars, and honest kids will tend to associate with other honest kids?

Then you have to consider the prior probability that a burglar or an honest kid will be taking a stroll along your street. Is it a street where many people take their evening constitutionals? Does your street lead somewhere that people want to go? Or is there little reason for someone out for an honest walk to be there?

Let's stick with your "10% of gypsy kids are burglars" again, and suppose that I saw a gypsy kid in my back garden. The probability that that kid is a burglar is, I would say, close to 100%. It's not exactly 100%, because there's an outside chance that an honest kid could be in my garden pursuing his dog, which had slipped its leash or something. If the kid is not in my back garden, but instead on the street looking at my house, and I live on an obscure back street, he's probably a burglar. If I live in the centre of town, we're probably close to the 10% chance of him being a burglar.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, what is your point, Marvin?

To answer the question "did any of his previous calls to the police turn out to be justified?"

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think his point is that if even one of Zimmerman's calls to the police were justified then they all must have been justified

Oh please. You say "justified" as if we're only allowed to be suspicious of people who are actually planning crimes, but suspicion doesn't work that way. If there was some way to perfectly and infallibly identify which people on a street are criminals planning a burglary and which are innocently strolling somewhere then that would be lovely, but until that day all any of us have to go on is instinct and experience. If I saw an unknown young male loitering in the rain or looking through windows in an area with a high crime rate, I'd be suspicious as well.

What the wikipedia link says is that less than a month prior to the shooting Zimmerman identified a suspicious character but the police were too late to the scene, meaning the suspicious character got away and less than a week later robbed a house. To me that explains why Zimmerman would be keen to keep tabs on the next suspicious character he saw so that the same thing wouldn't happen. OK, he was in fact wrong about the motivations of the next suspicious character he saw, but that doesn't make his suspicion wrong in and of itself.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

There was unclarity about the procedure: The burglaries as I understand it are usually committed by groups of 2 to 6 children (sometimes they split into smaller independent groups). They get driven there by an adult relative who waits somewhere round the corner. It is a fast business.

The elaborate math models above have many speculative absolute figures, but imo have one major flaw. I am not interested in knowing whether (and with what likelihood) a random gypsy child I encounter somewhere is a burglar or not. I say it is likely to be if and only if I see a few in my residential part of town.
Your math models assume a random distribution of people in a city. That is not so. The gypsies do not live in the suburban residential areas (but a 40 min cycle ride away in the centre) and hence normally no groups of gypsy children are out playing in the streets. The likelihood of such a playgroup accidentally strolling into the outskirts is much smaller than the likelihood that they have come there for some purpose. I don't know whether the likelhood they want to burgle is 20 or 80 percent (they may just be begging, visiting someone or whatever). But in any case large enough to keep an eye open. Literally.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
No, it's probably because the non-gypsy 60-70% of burglars are able to take advantage of people's misdirected attention.

You boldly assume that keeping an eye on one group means ignoring all others.
In any case the fact that there are other burglars is neither here nor there. The fact I cannot solve all problems does not mean I shouldn't start with solving any.

Btw the children are too young (or allege to be) to get convicted. If they get arrested, they are verbally warned and are taken back to the parents or "uncles" and "aunts". These then take them to further burglaries (sometimes to get arrested repeatedly) and after a few months (when the authorities might be moving in to have the kids taken into custody, a lengthy process, or the children are looking too old) send them home to Bulgaria and Romania to be replaced by others imported for the purpose. It is quite a disgusting form of human trafficking with parents at home colluding but that is another story.

My point with the example is: It all rests on the information that a large share of burglaries are attributable to a small group easily identified (and possibly a group rarely seen in the area, like young black hoodies). So would one not have to ask whether crime in Zimmerman's area was disproportionately often committed by young black men?
IF so, then it would be wrong to be suspicious of all groups alike. You'd look at that group more closely than others. On the same grounds that you look out for men rather than women. And for teenagers rather than octogenarians. That is neither racism, ageism nor sexism, it is common sense. You neglect the potential female old white burglars but still reduce the one part of the problem you can. I know that feels unfair if you are an innocent young man (been there) and worse if you're black. It feels unfair even when you are not quite so innocent.

I don't get the posts about how "there is so much racism in the US". So? Does it mean that any conflict between black and white has a racist element? No. This one for instance apparently does not from all I have read so far (Thanks Marvin). But it is a convenient card to play (as OJ Simpson demonstrated).
It is possible to stereotype incidents. This form of stereotyping is just as bad as stereotyping people because it blinds you to impartially checking facts and looking for the truth.

I suspect that the anti-racist activists would have referred to Zimmerman as a "Latino" had he been shot by a white man. Showing that their perspective is more about highlighting a perceived societal problem than about understanding what happened.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

What the jury had, bottom line, was substantial reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's culpability under the law as it now stands for murder in the 2nd degree or for manslaughter.

This seems to be confirmed the interview given by juror B29 on American TV [ which would BTW be way against the law and practice in most other countries]. In essence she said that she thought Zimmerman "got away with murder" but there was not evidence at the trial to convict him under the law.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Without some real numbers, the entire discussion is meaningless.

Yeah, and The Ship can close up shop on that account.

Even real numbers translate into percentages of a given population. Percentages suggest that (as Croesos pointed out earlier) it's a minority of any given group which is likely responsible for illegal activity.

The problem? We're not sure which ones. This results in our attaching our suspicions to ALL members of an identified group.

When we view most or all members of the identified group with suspicion as potential lawbreakers, we are profiling, and statistically speaking, we're wrong. Most members of any given group will prove to be as law-abiding as most members of any other given group.

Gypsies in particular have a longstanding reputation attaching to them of being crooks, child-stealers, and so on. How much truth is there to this reputation? I dunno. Other groups have longstanding (and false) reputations attaching to them, too; the Protocols of the Elders of Zion springs to mind.

Our suspicions, though, are virtually a definition of "prejudice" -- pre-judging someone who has not (yet) stolen from us by assuming that s/he is about to.

Meanwhile, while we glue our attention to the one we "suspect," an actual thief from some other group can take advantage (as Soror Magna suggests) of the fact they're not being watched like a hawk and commit a theft.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Reminds me of that Woody Allen line: 'we hate black people, because we think they have big dicks, but we hate Jews even more even though they have small dicks'.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
When we view most or all members of the identified group with suspicion as potential lawbreakers,

Who does? You are arguing against a straw man.
We are talking of members of a particular group behaving suspiciously, out of the ordinary. Where would that be "all" or "most"?

I hope you don't apply your illogical I-am-so-unprejudiced-I-never-make-assumptions-attitude if you see a group of skinheads clad in black leather, carrying lighters and petrol canisters just walking around the neigbourhood of an apartment block full of refugees. Nothing illegal there, mind. You walk past, not wondering. Maybe some stereotyping would be helpful in the real world?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This dovetails with other poster's implicit assumptions that virtually all (~95-99%) crimes* are committed by black perpetrators.
I don't see these implicit assumptions. Would you please spell them out for me.

I don't know why I include these links if no one is going to follow them. If we follow the assumption of posters like Marvin about the paucity of non-black crime, the mathematics of getting a non-biased set of 46-0 trials means that at least 94% of criminals committing crimes of the type that are subject to observation by foot patrols (or car-level observation) must be black.

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
I hope you don't apply your illogical I-am-so-unprejudiced-I-never-make-assumptions-attitude if you see a group of skinheads clad in black leather, carrying lighters and petrol canisters just walking around the neigbourhood of an apartment block full of refugees.

I find it telling that you consider the petrol-cans-and-lighters ensemble to only be suspicious if there are some kind of outward skinhead signifiers.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Sorry; I failed to pay sufficient attention to this post, due to haste.

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

I don't get the posts about how "there is so much racism in the US". So?

It's possible that you don't "get" this because you don't live here, with our particular history, our particular baggage, and the particular problems it creates for those of us who do.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not talking about overt, conscious racism most of the time. That's largely absent from present-day U.S. culture, either because most of us who ever considered black people as less than human have died out, moved beyond that belief, and/or now keep such beliefs hidden because they're no longer socially acceptable.

Understand, though, that racism -- or more accurately we might call it "separatism" -- was built into our social institutions in much of this country for substantial chunks of our history.

When a society's very structures are built around efforts to maintain one group's privileged status by ignoring the needs, concerns, and rights of another group, that society creates a class of people who understand, and must hold, two conflicting sets of beliefs simultaneously.

You know you are human. You know you have human rights, dignity, talents, hopes, value; it's part of your survival kit. At the very same time, you also "know" -- because your society confronts you with this knowledge at every turn -- that you are less than human; that your "rights" are utterly contingent on the whims of privileged others rather than enshrined in any law; that your dignity ends at your epidermis; that your talents, however substantial, have no intrinsic worth except to you alone; and that every one of your hopes, however small or humble, hangs by the thread of some privileged other's permission, and not on anything you yourself can supply.

You constantly encounter a society which loudly proclaims its egalitarian ideals while it simultaneously demands that you get waited on last (if at all) at the corner store because "egalitarian" does not apply to you. On the bus (if you're allowed to board one), you sit in back, or you stand, and you surrender your seat to any white who demands it -- even if seats are available elsewhere (this was going on within living memory!). On the sidewalk, you've learned to step into the gutter so an approaching white need not risk polluting himself by brushing against you.

Laws meant to protect "persons" from needless harassment and unjust proceedings do not apply to you, so your relationship to society is that of a non-person. There is no law or custom on which you are able to rely or to which you can expectantly turn, because all these social structures have been shaped to protect the privilege of others.

As a result, we've created together a society in which a substantial portion of the populace has expended, and must continue to expend, vast amounts of its human energy simply maintaining some shred of self-value.

How else do we explain the recent past? Where does an utterly devalued person obtain the drive to get out of bed at 4:00 a.m. to polish the floors of an office they might otherwise be barred from entering? What does such knowledge cost any human being compelled to confront it? How does s/he continue living, while constantly being reminded, a hundred times each and every day, that s/he has no value?

That's an immense and crushing psychic burden to bear. It has crushed many, and continues to.

Nor does the burden simply vanish when the events and institutions upholding/requiring it begin to change. How can individuals trust in such changes, when the institutions themselves have demonstrated, time and again, over the decades, that they cannot be trusted?

This is what has prompted so many demonstrations in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict.

Further, as individuals, we are brought up by those who have lived through a past we have not shared. Our parents' pasts and their experience are what they use to teach us how to survive, not in the present, but in the hostile environment in which they lived. So mistrust remains even where the reasons for it may -- may! -- be disappearing.

And alas, are also re-appearing. Take a look at North Carolina's new proposed voting rights legislation.

That is the "so." It's real, it's palpable, and it informs our perceptions, accurately or not.

The past informs the present. There remains a current of mistrust which poisons the social pool. The formerly/maybe currently privileged mistrust a society which is busy betraying that privilege. The un-privileged cannot trust the appearance of these new/emerging equalities; they may be temporary or illusory. And neither group, as groups, can quite trust how the other will react. Will the un-privileged use its new powers to violent punish those who once oppressed them? Will the privileged use its remaining power to renew and restore their status by violence? There is fear on both sides.

It's only as individuals, and at the level of positive personal experience that we take small, personal steps toward gradual rapprochement. We make inching progress. It is agonizingly slow. It takes time beyond our lifetimes, and some of us sink into despair or flare out in rage because one small life is all any of us has.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Good explanation, Porridge. Actually, I wonder if Australia might be another country that would well understand the of the underlying issues because of a similar societal history of institutionalized racism (albeit against a different people.) Or am I way out of the ballpark?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
My point with the example is: It all rests on the information that a large share of burglaries are attributable to a small group easily identified (and possibly a group rarely seen in the area, like young black hoodies). So would one not have to ask whether crime in Zimmerman's area was disproportionately often committed by young black men?

As previously noted, the neighborhood in question is about 20% black*. It can't be that uncommon to see black people there.

Also, that seems like a lot of words just to get across the idea "it's not racism to assume all black people are burglars if all burglars are black".

--------------------
*Possibly more, since the U.S. Census categories of "Hispanic or Latino" and "Black" are not mutually exclusive.

[ 26. July 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
When we view most or all members of the identified group with suspicion as potential lawbreakers,
Who does? You are arguing against a straw man.
We are talking of members of a particular group behaving suspiciously, out of the ordinary. Where would that be "all" or "most"?

Alas, this "man" has flesh, blood, bones, wife, children -- the full catastrophe, to slightly paraphrase Zorba the Greek,

In the example you offered earlier, you asserted that that a householder who sees a group of Gypsy kids in his neighborhood would be smart to keep a sharp eye out, or words to that effect.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that this group of kids were strangers to the householder; that, in other words, the householder would have no way of knowing what this particular group intended.

Standing lookout on these kids, then, is based on the assumption that they are likely to intend theft. Since we've already demonstrated that a minority of the burglaries mentioned earlier are committed by a minority of the Gypsy kids, this assumption is statistically unsupported.

The householder is "painting" this group of kids with the evil intentions of a minority of the members of the group they belong to. In short, see any group of Gypsy kids (and btw, my experience is that kids of just about any group you care to mention tend to hang out in groups) and start counting the spoons.

That is making assumptions about people the householder doesn't actually know and about whose intentions he is simply guessing. It is assuming that any group of Gypsy kids, based on the actions of a minority of Gypsy kids, is up to no good.

He could, of course, be right, and the kids will proceed to rob him blind. If so, he'll have passed Prejudice 101 and moved on to Confirmation Bias II.

[ 26. July 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal. After all, if we suspect no-one then we are very quickly going to get robbed. And we're not allowed to only suspect some, because that's prejudiced. And it's utterly pointless to only take action once we're sure of someone's intentions, because by then it's too fucking late.

Am I right?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Surely the householder may notice said gypsy children, note that they do not live in the neighborhood and be more aware of them. He doesn't need to even notice their ethnicity to do that, for one thing. To put it another way, I have heard many black men talk about how much it sucks that whenever they walk into stores in certain towns, the shopkeeper follows them around suspiciously. I am a white and the few times that has happened to me as a teen I quit patronizing the store. I could do that because stores don't generally treat me as a criminal. I'd rather occasionally have stuff stolen then treat a whole group of people as criminals.* You're right. It's not the most efficient thing I could do, but it is a little more Christian, perhaps.

*Thus increasing hugely the chances that they will become so, also

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.

<snip>

Am I right?

Only if you find yourself completely lost without the handy skin-colored guides by which all criminals seem to identify themselves.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

What the jury had, bottom line, was substantial reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's culpability under the law as it now stands for murder in the 2nd degree or for manslaughter.
This seems to be confirmed the interview given by juror B29 on American TV [ which would BTW be way against the law and practice in most other countries]. In essence she said that she thought Zimmerman "got away with murder" but there was not evidence at the trial to convict him under the law.

For a juror, whose job it is to decide whether someone is guilty of murder - and I'd like to emphasise that murder is a defined legal concept - to deliver a not guilty verdict and indicate her agreement with that verdict, but to still say it was murder is demented.

That lady is in the best position of ANYONE to assess the EVIDENCE. Not whatever she 'feels' in her heart or gut. If even she realised there wasn't evidence of murder, then why the fuck come out and say he got away with murder?

Killing is not murder. It's as simple as that. Murder is a specific type of killing. We have laws that define what murder is and isn't. If she thinks that there ought to be some kind of sanction for killing someone after foolishly helping to set up a situation, or for racial profiling, then say so. But it's not MURDER for God's sake.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That lady is in the best position of ANYONE to assess the EVIDENCE. Not whatever she 'feels' in her heart or gut. If even she realised there wasn't evidence of murder, then why the fuck come out and say he got away with murder?

Have you considered the possibility that as a private individual she doesn't feel bound to only hold opinions that are "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the same way that would be required of her as a juror? In other words, she may be fairly certain Zimmerman's actions amounted to murder, but not be completely free from reasonable doubt on the subject.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.

<snip>

Am I right?

No, that's called paranoia, and they have medication for it these days.

The thing is, figuring out who should be suspected of being a criminal is the wrong way to go about preventing crime. It makes more sense to make people's lives better in the first place so that they make better choices.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That lady is in the best position of ANYONE to assess the EVIDENCE. Not whatever she 'feels' in her heart or gut. If even she realised there wasn't evidence of murder, then why the fuck come out and say he got away with murder?
Have you considered the possibility that as a private individual she doesn't feel bound to only hold opinions that are "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the same way that would be required of her as a juror? In other words, she may be fairly certain Zimmerman's actions amounted to murder, but not be completely free from reasonable doubt on the subject.

She doesn't even think it should have gone to trial, for God's sake. It wasn't even close.

For a juror to go on television and say this is grossly irresponsible in my view. She's not getting the chance to be interviewed because she's just some private individual.

All she's going to achieve is further unrest. And a little bit of redeeming herself by saying 'see, I'm not a bad person, don't hate me'.

It'd be different if she was somehow arguing for law reform, but I don't see much of that. All I see is a woman saying there's so little evidence that the case shouldn't have gone to trial, but dammit, in my heart I still want him to be guilty.

You know what? I'd personally quite like him to be guilty of some things as well. So change the fucking law. But the amount of law changing required to make Zimmerman guilty of murder would be extraordinary.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Am I right?

Not even close.
For the argument, let us say all burglers in Florida are Black. Does it follow that all Black people are burglers? Or criminals of some sort? Given the numbers of Black people in the Orland area and in Zimmerman's neighborhood, the chances of any given Black person being a criminal is low.
As to the one call Zimmerman made which might have been accurate, proves nothing.
Who are you raping today, Marvin? In my personal experience, 100% of rapists are white men. By your logic, you are suspect.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal. After all, if we suspect no-one then we are very quickly going to get robbed. And we're not allowed to only suspect some, because that's prejudiced. And it's utterly pointless to only take action once we're sure of someone's intentions, because by then it's too fucking late.

Am I right?

I suppose it depends on what you want to be “safe” from.

Look, there really are people among us who are up to no good. We all know this. We’re all justified in taking reasonable precautions to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and whatever else we value.

I’ve lived through a burglary: one door broken down, all portable pawnable items taken, my other possessions trashed. Two white guys were seen nearby carrying away my TV set; cops assumed they were the burglars (no one was ever apprehended). The aftermath was tough, financially and emotionally.

Should I now be wary of white guys? That’s a pretty daunting proposition, since about 45% of the people I deal with on any given day are white guys. Standing that much “guard” over that many people is a psychic burden beyond my load capacity, especially since the majority of these white guys are perfectly fine people.

Instead, I look at security arrangements in any building I’m thinking of moving into. I have a sturdier door now and lock it and the windows when I leave home. I lock my car when I exit it.

I’ve lived through one mugging at gunpoint: sheer fear, loss of valuables, another difficult aftermath. One black kid, maybe 19-20 (and he was shaking), aimed his gun at me.

Should I now be wary of all black kids? Again, a daunting proposition: I have a black client about that age, a black neighbor (maybe a bit older), and (when I was teaching) black students that age. Shall I quit my job, move house, avoid teaching ever again? Sorry, that’s a psychic burden I’m not equal to, especially when none of these black kids pose any noticeable threat to me, and all but one seem pretty mellow (my client is not mellow).

Instead, I changed the way I carry my valuables. I leave jewelry off if I have to be out alone in a high-crime area.

I’ve survived a rape by an Hispanic guy armed with a knife. Hours of abject terror in fear of my life; some physical injuries (minor), some major ones (emotional/psychological). Long, extremely difficult aftermath.

Should I now be wary of all Hispanic men? Yet another daunting proposition calling for changes I can make only at significant (though not necessarily financial) cost to myself, especially when the Hispanic guys I deal with all seem like scholars and gentlemen.

I still have the occasional flashback (happened a long time ago). I moved away from that area. I take other kinds of precautions.

The fears our fantasies generate about The Other do not protect us. In fact, I think they render all of us less safe, by eroding trust, by creating misunderstanding, by influencing actions that, intended or not, create ill-will, can lead to violence, and even sometimes kill.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You know what? The best evidence of Zimmerman lacking the intent to kill is that he let nearly 50 other black youths get away alive.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What the wikipedia link says is that less than a month prior to the shooting Zimmerman identified a suspicious character but the police were too late to the scene, meaning the suspicious character got away and less than a week later robbed a house. To me that explains why Zimmerman would be keen to keep tabs on the next suspicious character he saw so that the same thing wouldn't happen. OK, he was in fact wrong about the motivations of the next suspicious character he saw, but that doesn't make his suspicion wrong in and of itself.

Your summary presumes that Zimmerman's reidentification of the burglar with the person he'd reported was correct. The link doesn't say that he was shown an identity parade. There are numerous reported cases of eyewitnesses identifying the first black male they're presented with as the person they saw at the scene of the crime.

In any case, I haven't heard that anyone has claimed that Martin was looking in windows.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.

You may personally suspect anyone you want for whatever reasons, we have no thought police here. The problem is when there is a formal or informal system of law enforcement in place that gives room to racially prejudiced suspicions and acts on them.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.
You may personally suspect anyone you want for whatever reasons, we have no thought police here. The problem is when there is a formal or informal system of law enforcement in place that gives room to racially prejudiced suspicions and acts on them.

There's a serious problem with having an informal law enforcement system, full stop. I believe the colloquial term is vigilantism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what? The best evidence of Zimmerman lacking the intent to kill is that he let nearly 50 other black youths get away alive.

By that logic nobody ever has the intent to kill.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what? The best evidence of Zimmerman lacking the intent to kill is that he let nearly 50 other black youths get away alive.
By that logic nobody ever has the intent to kill.

No, for several reasons. The first is that some people have a history showing a propensity for violence. The second i can immediately think of is that people form an intent to kill in specific circumstances. My whole point is that Zimmerman had been in the same circumstances repeatedly.

You were one of the people suggesting notions of Zimmerman wanting to stalk and hunt a young black man with his gun. It's sheer fantasyland stuff, mister. That doesn't mean I think what he did was smart or even right, but there's simply no evidence for a deliberate murder plan here. The only time there was any 'evidence' for it was at the very start of this story when he had mental images of a shadowy gunman carefully aiming at a teenager.

The alternative of course is that Zimmerman is a criminal mastermind who repeatedly called police to draw attention to himself, did it again when he'd found the right victim, and worked out a way to get his victim on top of him so that the gun made contact with the victim's clothes but not his body.

You wanna suggest Zimmerman is a criminal mastermind?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who are you raping today, Marvin? In my personal experience, 100% of rapists are white men. By your logic, you are suspect.

You expect the old "all men are potential rapists" line to get a rise out of me? It's what feminists and the like have been saying for years. Apparently, that's one piece of profiling that's perfectly kosher and laudable.

So sure, you can be suspicious of me if you want. You wouldn't be the first woman to cross the road rather than walk near me purely because I'm a man. I've long since stopped being offended by it, and frankly if that policy does work to make those women safer then why the hell would I argue that they shouldn't do it?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You were one of the people suggesting notions of Zimmerman wanting to stalk and hunt a young black man with his gun.

So he didn't want to, but something made him do it anyway? Demonic possession? Alien mind control? Exactly what are you suggesting overrode Zimmerman's will to make him take actions he didn't want to take?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You were one of the people suggesting notions of Zimmerman wanting to stalk and hunt a young black man with his gun.
So he didn't want to, but something made him do it anyway? Demonic possession? Alien mind control? Exactly what are you suggesting overrode Zimmerman's will to make him take actions he didn't want to take?

I'm talking about intent to kill. We don't only kill people when we intend to kill them.

And no, I don't think words like stalk or hunt are particularly apt for what Zimmerman actually did, either. But I specifically don't think there's any evidence for stalking or hunting WITH HIS GUN. There simply isn't any evidence that he had his gun with him for the purpose of using it. As I've pointed out before, this is the USA we are talking about, where people carry guns out of a vague inchoate sense it might be useful someday.

[ 26. July 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm talking about intent to kill. We don't only kill people when we intend to kill them.

And no, I don't think words like stalk or hunt are particularly apt for what Zimmerman actually did, either. But I specifically don't think there's any evidence for stalking or hunting WITH HIS GUN.

You mean ". . . aside from the fatal bullet wound"? The fact that Zimmerman had a gun with him that night seems to be one of the less disputable facts of the case.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There simply isn't any evidence that he had his gun with him for the purpose of using it. As I've pointed out before, this is the USA we are talking about, where people carry guns out of a vague inchoate sense it might be useful someday.

So he didn't have his gun with him to use, just with the idea that it would be useful? [Confused]

If something is going to be "useful", doesn't that imply it's going to be "used"?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You expect the old "all men are potential rapists" line to get a rise out of me? It's what feminists and the like have been saying for years. Apparently, that's one piece of profiling that's perfectly kosher and laudable.

Not attempting to "get a rise" out of you. I am demonstrating the problem with your logic.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.

Actually, in my experience working retail, that's exactly what we're supposed to do. I remember a training exercise on the computer where we were supposed to pick out the most likely person to be committing a theft, and the whole point was we couldn't tell.

Not sure if watching everyone equally was actually more effective at stopping shoplifters, or whether the company was just afraid of getting sued for profiling.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We don't only kill people when we intend to kill them.

True. Sometimes a killing happens by accident, or through reckless disregard, or by neglect. I don't think Martin's death quite falls into any of these categories, though.

Zimmerman didn't "neglectfully" carry his gun into the situation; packing heat was apparently an habitual action with him (he was, after all, en route to the grocery store with it). While I personally might consider this action "reckless," carrying a concealed weapon is now legal in 50 states, so from a legal standpoint (IANAL) how can this be considered "reckless?" And certainly Martin's death was not an accident.

We seem to have created a new category of human-inflicted death whose primary characteristic appears to be impunity for the inflicter.

We did this by turning the concealed-carrying of weapons into a sort of community norm, and coupled that to the ambiguities inherent in SYG.

While SYG apparently played no role in Z's defense at trial, it does seem to have been the lens through which local police originally viewed the incident, which in turn seems to have affected the amount and quality of evidence gathered and the speed with which the incident was investigated.

It's possible that if local police were pursuing this investigation as a case of manslaughter (for example), and not self-defense under SYG, the prosecution might have had more, different, and prompter evidence on which to build a case. Again, IANAL; but if I get another chance to help repeal SYG in my own state, I will work hard to do so.

If I could repeal every concealed-carry law across this country (military and police excepted) I'd do that too.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There simply isn't any evidence that he had his gun with him for the purpose of using it.

I'm trying really hard to think of some other reason to carry a concealed gun, other than for using it. Clearly not to intimidate people because it's concealed. Maybe because, although he had absolutely no intention of ever using it, it made his dick feel longer?

Nah, I really can't think of any. Can you?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Not evidence that Zimmerman was guilty, but the guy is so sketchy: I mean faking rescues, really?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Uhuh. Sounds like a really neutral source, I must say, Gwai:

quote:
Now, none of this proves that anyone helped Zimmerman stage anything with regards to his role in rescuing victims in this crash [...] The more I think about this, the more I hope there is some real smoking gun that comes out of all of this. I’d love for Zimmerman and all involved with what is beginning to look more and more like a complete scam to go down in flames. Surely there is a broken law in here somewhere. We just have to find it.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Yeah, definitely a biased source. The evidence is interesting though.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I'll confess that as soon as I first heard this news about the rescue, I found it fishy (my prejudices showing). The fact that I half-heard a subsequent story about the rescued family's refusal to be interviewed heightened my suspicions (though I can imagine many legitimate reasons for refusing to come forward about an authentic rescue connected with George Zimmerman).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The rescue is irrelevant regardless.
Few people are completely evil or good.
Say it is true that he rescued people, this changes nothing about the Martin incident. They are different situations.
And if he did participate in a ruse, this does not indicate he lied in court or in anyway did anything he says he did not.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

And if he did participate in a ruse, this does not indicate he lied in court or in anyway did anything he says he did not.

Would you not entertain the idea that someone who staged a rescue like this in order to make himself look good would have demonstrated his generally deceitful character, which would increase the chance that other self-serving statements he might make or might have made would be lies?

If it's a fake, the probability of him being a lying self-serving toerag goes up. If it's genuine, it tells you little.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Porridge [Overused]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re the rescue:

I haven't researched it. But I don't think it's *necessarily* fake. Z was known to be helpful to people before he killed M. And he may well feel that he needs to balance the scales.

I don't think it's necessarily suspicious that the recipients are avoiding the limelight. Given all the tense feelings about Z, would you really want media attention turned on *you*??

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We don't only kill people when we intend to kill them.
True. Sometimes a killing happens by accident, or through reckless disregard, or by neglect. I don't think Martin's death quite falls into any of these categories, though.

Zimmerman didn't "neglectfully" carry his gun into the situation; packing heat was apparently an habitual action with him (he was, after all, en route to the grocery store with it). While I personally might consider this action "reckless," carrying a concealed weapon is now legal in 50 states, so from a legal standpoint (IANAL) how can this be considered "reckless?" And certainly Martin's death was not an accident.

We seem to have created a new category of human-inflicted death whose primary characteristic appears to be impunity for the inflicter.

We did this by turning the concealed-carrying of weapons into a sort of community norm, and coupled that to the ambiguities inherent in SYG.

While SYG apparently played no role in Z's defense at trial, it does seem to have been the lens through which local police originally viewed the incident, which in turn seems to have affected the amount and quality of evidence gathered and the speed with which the incident was investigated.

It's possible that if local police were pursuing this investigation as a case of manslaughter (for example), and not self-defense under SYG, the prosecution might have had more, different, and prompter evidence on which to build a case. Again, IANAL; but if I get another chance to help repeal SYG in my own state, I will work hard to do so.

If I could repeal every concealed-carry law across this country (military and police excepted) I'd do that too.

With this I am in emphatic agreement.

Had this tragedy happened in many other places, the first question would be, why the heck are you carrying a gun?

In the USA, the only question is, have you got a permit. And I maintain, despite queries from Croesos and mousethief, that you CANNOT infer in the USA from 'I am currently carrying a gun' to 'I am currently intending to make use of that gun'. It is simply a habitual act to have it around, just in case, with no real expectation on a given occasion that the gun will in fact be used.

And having weapons around to come into play in unplanned situations is a recipe for tragedy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I maintain, despite queries from Croesos and mousethief, that you CANNOT infer in the USA from 'I am currently carrying a gun' to 'I am currently intending to make use of that gun'.

You're adding adverbs to what you said earlier that I responded to. In the United States this is referred to as "moving the goalposts."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I maintain, despite queries from Croesos and mousethief, that you CANNOT infer in the USA from 'I am currently carrying a gun' to 'I am currently intending to make use of that gun'.
You're adding adverbs to what you said earlier that I responded to. In the United States this is referred to as "moving the goalposts."

Perhaps when you were responding earlier you should have read my remarks in a manner that fitted the context I was making them instead of reading them in a way that was extremely literal but nonsensical. I looked at my post and your response and there were words there to give you clues (the word someday was perhaps the biggest clue of all), you just chose to ignore the parts of the sentence that would you point you away from the nuanced interpretation. In Australia this is called 'reading comprehension'.

[ 27. July 2013, 06:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Interesting. Here it's called "reading minds." And I don't do it. Say what you mean.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The alternative is to suggest that Zimmerman's intention to maybe use a gun someday has any evidentiary value as to what happened on a particular day. And that's really, really silly. I carry my glasses case with me every day I wear my contact lenses, because there's a chance I may need to switch my glasses. That chance becomes a reality maybe 1 day in 200. It would be silly to point to a particular day and say that I intended to switch to my glasses that particular day. My intention is only a general one to switch to my glasses should the circumstance arise that I really need to.

Some vague notion that Zimmerman intended to use his gun if a circumstance arose that he needed to is nowhere NEAR enough to establish any intent by Zimmerman to use his gun on Trayvon Martin when he was trying to follow Trayvon Martin. It's a massive logical fallacy: you used your gun so therefore you were planning to use it. The only time you can confidently say that Zimmerman was planning to use his gun was in the last couple of seconds he was reaching for it. Any intent before that is entirely speculative.

And on the evidence available, that decision in those last couple of seconds is pretty easy to justify. I think the decision to have a gun available at that moment is unfortunate, and I think the laws making it easy to have a gun available at that moment are wrong, but I can't fault Zimmerman for choosing to use the gun in those couple of seconds, and there's simply nothing to prove that he had been intending to use it any earlier.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Don't questions of premeditation only apply to first degree murder, something Zimmerman wasn't charged with? Making a decision "in the last couple of seconds" is pretty much the legal textbook definition of second degree murder.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't questions of premeditation only apply to first degree murder, something Zimmerman wasn't charged with? Making a decision "in the last couple of seconds" is pretty much the legal textbook definition of second degree murder.

But it's not the picture you're all trying to paint of Zimmerman, is it? I keep reading about how his earlier actions are to blame for the situation. And they are, but not in a sense that is meaningful to a murder charge.

And any case for a murder charge from those last couple of seconds falls apart. There isn't much evidence, but what evidence there is is consistent with Zimmetman's account. Martin on top of him and trying to hurt him.

There are plenty of other cases of blacks being shot that are far more concerning in terms of the legal liability of the shooter. The only reason this one became a celebrity event is because the police, knowing more facts than 'man shoots teenager', came to the same conclusion the jury did: teenager had taken matters into his own hands EVERY BIT AS MUCH as the shooter had.

If you don't want to be shot, one thing to avoid is to bang the head of an armed man into the ground.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
. . . teenager had taken matters into his own hands EVERY BIT AS MUCH as the shooter had.

. . . and there's the elephant in the living room which many of us overlook in our haste to point out the enormous inequality of outcomes (teen dies; shooter not only acquitted, but in some quarters hailed as hero).

It's also the point that, whether or not we think SYG played any substantial role in this case, makes SYG such a terrible law.

Where two individuals, at that moment breaking no law, are on "the ground," whose is that "ground?" (Note the name by which the law is commonly referred to -- stand YOUR ground.) Which of them can legitimately claim that ground is theirs to stand? In the traditional "castle" doctrine, this is clear: the legitimate owner or resident of the "castle" has the clear, higher, right to be there and defend ground that is plainly "his;" an intruder has no such right. Once we move this doctrine into public territory, this clear demarcation vanishes.

Where two individuals each have, or believe they have, reason to suspect the other, which of them is legitimately "standing" that ground? (I think you're stalking me; you think I'm casing the joint -- and, the particulars of this case set aside, both suspicions may have merit, or neither suspicion may have merit.)

Why isn't "retreat," where that's possible, a simpler, safer, better, more reasonable alternative to confronting a possible threat? Why isn't it held as a necessary condition to meet before any "standing" of any "ground" is allowed to come into play? Indeed, why suddenly has "retreat" apparently been demoted from its true status -- a perfectly legitimate means of self-defense?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

(I think you're stalking me; you think I'm casing the joint -- and, the particulars of this case set aside, both suspicions may have merit, or neither suspicion may have merit.)

I think it's certainly possibly to construct a scenario where each man "stood his ground" and escalated the conflict to the point where one man ended up dead, without any crime having been committed under Florida law. Which just seems wrong.

Without SYG, I don't think you can construct such a scenario - without SYG, at the very least, the person who initiated physical violence would find it very hard to claim that he couldn't run away.

Without SYG, it is still possible to construct scenarios in which the Zimmerman character commits no crime - such a scenario may well start with the Z character asking "what are you doing around here?" whereupon he is jumped by the Martin character and has no chance to escape.

Also without SYG, one can construct scenarios in which both the Z and M characters are guilty of crimes (because either has the opportunity to break off the conflict, but doesn't) and I think one can also construct a scenario where the Z character commits a crime, but M does not (for example, if M believes that he is being assaulted by someone who is intending to use his gun, it is reasonable to pound him into insensibility or otherwise disarm him in order to defend against being shot whilst attempting to flee.) The latter is probably the hardest one to argue, unless the Z character has already fired his weapon.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: It seems like the only "safe" way to behave is to suspect literally everyone of being a potential criminal.

Am I right?
No, that's called paranoia, and they have medication for it these days.

The medicine apparently doesn't help with getting irony, does it? :-)
I think you inadvertently, managed to confirm Marvin's point.

Logically there are only three alternatives:

a) Either one suspect a selection of people. That logically involves profiling of some sort.

or

b) The I-can't-know option: Not suspect anyone. In practice this means looking the other way. It also means that after a crime one can wash one's hands in innocence because one did nothing, i.e. nothing wrong.

or

c) The paranoid option: Suspect everbody equally in order to avoid profiling.

You excluded Option (a) because profiling is discriminatory.
So which do you opt for, (b) or (c) ?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Or option D, suspect someone when there's some evidence of guilt.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

b) The I-can't-know option: Not suspect anyone. In practice this means looking the other way. It also means that after a crime one can wash one's hands in innocence because one did nothing, i.e. nothing wrong.

Huh?

It appears you've left out yet another option: don't suspect anybody and have no crime committed, in which case there was no need to look the other way, or do any handwashing, and in which case suspecting anybody would have been a waste of the suspector's energy.

True, I don't live in Frankfurt, which apparently has a high crime rate among German cities. But seriously: how often have you been the victim of theft, Sylvander?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have come across a summary at this site of Zimmermann's calls to the police. Here is the introduction and the list:

quote:

I have translated police codes and lingo to normal English as best I can. Whenever race/ethnicity is mentioned in the call log, I have included it here (any omissions are unintentional; if you discover any, please let me know so that I can correct this post).

A note about the number of calls GZ made. I’ve listed 43 incidents over about 7.5 years. (In a few cases, GZ called the operator back to provide additional information or to cancel the report, and that generated perhaps something closer to 46 calls, but I have chosen to focus on incidents.) On several occasions, I have seen vastly different claims about both the total number of calls GZ made and the time span over which he made them (e.g., “Zimmerman…called 911 46 times in 15 months” and “Zimmerman called…over 150 times. I have not seen evidence of any additional calls made by GZ to either 911 or the non-emergency number, and all of the calls introduced into evidence by the state at his trial came from the 43 incidents I catalog here. But if there are other calls that should be included in the calculus, I will be happy to learn about them and update this post.

8/12/04: Reports male driving pick-up without car seat
9/20/04: Neighbor’s garage door open
8/20/04: Reports white male walking in the road carrying a paper bag, presumably drinking
3/17/05: Pothole
4/27/05: Neighbor’s garage door open
9/21/05: Stray dog
9/23/05: Couldn’t reach his sister by phone
11/4/06: Reports pick-up driving around apartment complex for last five minutes “driving real slow looking at all the vehicles in the complex and blasting music”
6/24/07: Two Hispanic males and one white male loitering near pool; officer spoke to them and determined were locked out of their vehicle
10/14/07: Possible intentional damage to his car tire; thinks he knows who did it
11/25/07: Reports disturbance involving his ex-roommate, a white male
1/5/09: Fire alarm going off
3/12/09: Requests patrol outside his home for a week while he’s away
5/4/09: Reports blue Audi; unclear why
6/10/09: Fire alarm going off
6/16/09: People jumping over the fence and going into the pool area, playing basketball, trashing the bathroom; reports make and model of car
8/21/09: Disturbance involving landlord over rent and foreclosure
8/26/09: Male driving without headlights
9/7/09: Pothole
9/22/09: Speed bike doing wheelies, speeding and weaving in and out of traffic
10/23/09: Pitbull
11/21/09: Referring to unclear past event, GZ says subject is in front of his residence
11/3/09: White male driver in county vehicle cutting people off
1/1/10: White male having loud verbal dispute with female in back of pick-up
1/12/10: Neighbor’s garage door open, “very unlike his neighbor”
2/27/10: Reports residence in complex where multiple vehicles are constantly coming to the residence; unknown subjects run out to the vehicles and run back inside; the subjects are always outside with the garage open and hang out all night, an ongoing problem; unknown who lives at that address; GZ advises there are constantly different people
4/28/10: Vehicle obstructing road
6/12/10: At least 50 subjects GZ doesn’t think live at complex are in the clubhouse & pool areas having a party, causing road obstructions
6/26/10: Approximately 50 subjects are having a loud party and blocking the street
10/2/10: Female driver yelling at elderly passengers, unknown if altercation is physical, vehicle was rocking back and forth
11/8/10: Trash in roadway, appears to contain glass
11/26/10: Motion alarm tripped while GZ is out of town
3/18/11: Pitbull in his garage
4/22/11: Black male 7-9 years old walking alone unsupervised on busy street; GZ “concerned for well being”
5/27/11: GZ’s alarm tripped while he’s at work
8/3/11: Black male on foot at back entrance of neighborhood last seen wearing white tank top and black shorts; GZ believes he’s involved in recent burglaries in neighborhood; GZ says he matches the description that was given to police
8/6/11: Two black male teens near back gate of neighborhood, one wearing black tank top and black shorts, 2nd wearing black t-shirt and jeans; GZ says they’re the ones who have been burglarizing the area and predicts subjects will run into the subdivision next to his complex
9/23/11: Open garage door; GZ notes he’s part of neighborhood watch and is concerned about recent burglaries in area; had a neighborhood watch meeting previous night with Sgt. Herx who advised him to report anything suspicious
10/1/11: Two black males approx 20-30 years old appear to be loitering in their car at gate of community at 1 am; GZ doesn’t recognize subjects or vehicle and is concerned due to recent burglaries in the area
12/10/11: White male with shaved head at club house in black Mercedes was hired by GZ to serve food at an event but then GZ replaced him and subject seemed upset and wants to be paid; GZ has never met him in person; GZ’s wife will meet with police when they arrive
1/29/12: Five or six kids, ages 4-11 years, running and playing in the street and running out in front of cars
2/2/12: Black male wearing black leather jacket, black hat, and printed PJ pants keeps going to the residence of a white male; unclear what he’s doing; subject was gone when police arrived
2/26/12 [TRAYVON MARTIN]: Black male, late teens, dark gray hoodie, jeans or sweatpants, walking around area; GZ concerned about recent burglaries

Moo

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
True, I don't live in Frankfurt, which apparently has a high crime rate among German cities. But seriously: how often have you been the victim of theft, Sylvander?

Maybe that is the difference between us. I care about the crime that could or does happen to others, too. I guess because I believe in old-fashioned concepts like "community" and "society" and "responsibility for the common good".
But since you ask: During two years in central Frankfurt I was victim of one burglary and four thefts, not counting theft, drug-dealing, a robbery, an attempted gay bashing and a shooting I witnessed (the latter is admittedly rare).
I then moved to a suburb (an 8,500 people village in fact). The locals are more perceptive and attentive than I, some "watching TV" outside their front window for hours on end. I suspect they are more bent on watching each other's other-sex visitors - but that means they also spot the odd burglar and stare him/her away... . So the rate of burglaries was below average. Would such an SNW (Sedentary Neighbourhood Watch) find your approval :-)?
Still, within twelve months we had four armed robberies of the post office, one of the super market and a 75-year-old local farmer was almost shot dead when he surprised a burglar in the barn (unlike his body, his soul never recovered until he died). And yep, "ethnic minority" was a factor with all the crimes where suspects were described or culprits caught. Some people think it is racist to even know let alone mention this. But mentioning they were all male is ok.
I don't know how often the police were called for nothing (rarely, I guess, it's not the culture here), but I'd have more respect for the erroneous callers than for the people who denigrate them as "busybodies", thus discouraging them.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Huh?
It appears you've left out yet another option: don't suspect anybody and have no crime committed,

Your way of looking away apparently has a magic quality. In my world when I look away (into books mostly), crime simply continues to happen.
So I ask you again (and all others who criticize the unavoidable "profiling" of option (a) as racist) to give a rational answer: Option (b) or (c), which is it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Or option D, suspect someone when there's some evidence of guilt.

By the time there's evidence of guilt the crime has already been committed, making it too late to try to prevent it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oh, please. She phrased it poorly, but you likely understood the intent.

Try this: Notice suspicious activity. I.e. looking in windows or over hedges, testing doors, etc.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Try this: Notice suspicious activity. I.e. looking in windows or over hedges, testing doors, etc.

We've already had one person on this thread arguing that someone looking in windows may just be after interior design tips or looking for a place to stay the night. I'm sure similar "not doing anything wrong" excuses can be made for the other two as well.

For those who think we shouldn't seek to look after one another, there's simply nothing that's suspicious enough to justify our intervening to protect life/property. These are the people who think the only valid way of preventing crime is to let it fucking happen, then hope the police can find the culprit afterwards.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
a) Either one suspect a selection of people. That logically involves profiling of some sort.

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
And yep, "ethnic minority" was a factor with all the crimes where suspects were described or culprits caught.

That second follows logically from the first since you've decided that, by definition, certain ethnic groups cannot be criminals and are automatically above suspicion.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By the time there's evidence of guilt the crime has already been committed, making it too late to try to prevent it.

So . . . summary execution by armed vigilantes and it's "problem solved"?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By the time there's evidence of guilt the crime has already been committed, making it too late to try to prevent it.
So . . . summary execution by armed vigilantes and it's "problem solved"?

Yes, of course. There is absolutely no option between "do nothing" and "shoot the fuckers on sight". There is no such thing as a non-lethal means of defending oneself or one's neighbours.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, of course. There is absolutely no option between "do nothing" and "shoot the fuckers on sight". There is no such thing as a non-lethal means of defending oneself or one's neighbours.

Well, not in this specific case apparently. Otherwise "these assholes they always get away".

[ 29. July 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, of course. There is absolutely no option between "do nothing" and "shoot the fuckers on sight". There is no such thing as a non-lethal means of defending oneself or one's neighbours.
Well, not in this specific case apparently. Otherwise "these assholes they always get away".

Oh, are we back to the "Zimmerman hunted Martin down and shot him in cold blood" thing? It's funny, I could have sworn there's been 15 pages of thread where people have debunked that idea.

Handy hint: keeping an eye on someone isn't the same thing as gunning them down. Not even in this specific case.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh, are we back to the "Zimmerman hunted Martin down and shot him in cold blood" thing? It's funny, I could have sworn there's been 15 pages of thread where people have debunked that idea.

Except for "in cold blood", that's more or less what happened. Zimmerman "hunted Martin down" (or whatever verb you prefer to use for the kind of pursuit involved) and he shot Martin. These don't really seem to be facts in dispute. What we've established is that a lot of people think it was totally reasonable for Zimmerman to pursue/stalk/hunt/whatever Martin, but that's not the same as pretending it didn't happen.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Handy hint: keeping an eye on someone isn't the same thing as gunning them down. Not even in this specific case.

Pursuing someone both in a vehicle and on foot while "keeping an eye on" them is functionally indistinguishable from hunting for them.

[ 29. July 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Pursuing someone both in a vehicle and on foot while "keeping an eye on" them is functionally indistinguishable from hunting for them.

My emphasis. Two further words will suffice: manifest bullshit.

[ 29. July 2013, 21:42: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I would consider a stranger who followed me through my neighbourhood in a car and then on foot to be very suspicious. Anyone else?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Suspicious? I'd be scared s**tless.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Maybe that is the difference between us. I care about the crime that could or does happen to others, too. I guess because I believe in old-fashioned concepts like "community" and "society" and "responsibility for the common good".

Oddly enough, I also believe in "community" and "society" and "responsibility for the common good."

The real difference between us seems to be this: who belongs to your "community?" Your "society?"

Who belongs to mine?

To what community do those Gypsy kids belong?

See, it might be down to the work I do; I deal all day with people who look and act and talk (IF they talk) funny. You should see the looks they get when they go into a store. Reactions to my clients run the gamut, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, from Y to Z: fear, bewilderment, repugnance, etc. Yet they are members of "the community," or at least they long to be. But (when I or my staff are not lurking in the background) they get yelled at, or called names, or chased away, or laughed at, or hustled out. Sometimes they even get abused (usually not in stores -- on the street).

So our "suspicion meters" might be calibrated differently.

Imagine getting reactions like that on a frequent basis, though -- that as you proceed along the street on your own business, whatever that might be -- perfect strangers who know nothing about you start clutching their purses, or taking their lawn chairs and pets inside, or locking their doors and windows. Will you feel you're a member of this "community?"

[ 30. July 2013, 02:37: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Croesos

Do you think the evidence was sufficient to find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder? If you do, then I guess I can see the point of the use of 'hunting down' rather than the less pejorative 'following'. In short, you may see some kind of felonious intention at work. Not necessarily murderous at the start (which implies first degree murder). But felonious in some degree?

Isn't this the crux of the legal argument? I think it highly likely that his following was influenced by an overly suspicious state of mind. And a good argument can be advanced that there was prejudice at work. But I cannot see that makes him guilty of murder in any degree under the laws at work in the US.

In short, his state of mind may well have been reprehensible, but that does not make it criminal.

[ 30. July 2013, 04:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

In short, his state of mind may well have been reprehensible, but that does not make it criminal.

Can this be divorced from the fact that it led to a criminal act?

His state of mind led to the taking of a life, which in no way could be construed as an accident.

In my story upthread (in San Francisco), if the neighbours hadn't called the police and taken 'matters' into their own hands, the outcome could easily have been the same.

As it turned out the 'suspicious' person was the new postman - and the only thing which made them suspicious of him was his skin colour. They told us this.

[Frown]

[ 30. July 2013, 06:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Boogie--

Was the postman wearing his uniform???

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except for "in cold blood", that's more or less what happened. Zimmerman "hunted Martin down" (or whatever verb you prefer to use for the kind of pursuit involved) and he shot Martin. These don't really seem to be facts in dispute. What we've established is that a lot of people think it was totally reasonable for Zimmerman to pursue/stalk/hunt/whatever Martin, but that's not the same as pretending it didn't happen.

The evidence we have is that Zimmerman tried to track Martin, but failed. There is no evidence at all that he hunted Martin down.

[ 30. July 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

In short, his state of mind may well have been reprehensible, but that does not make it criminal.
Can this be divorced from the fact that it led to a criminal act?

His state of mind led to the taking of a life, which in no way could be construed as an accident.

In my story upthread (in San Francisco), if the neighbours hadn't called the police and taken 'matters' into their own hands, the outcome could easily have been the same.

As it turned out the 'suspicious' person was the new postman - and the only thing which made them suspicious of him was his skin colour. They told us this.

By stating that it led to a criminal act you are begging the question. I'm going to repeat this because it seems all too easy for people to forget: killing is NOT in and of itself a crime. We do NOT have laws that make you absolutely liable for killing someone regardless of the circumstances.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

As it turned out the 'suspicious' person was the new postman - and the only thing which made them suspicious of him was his skin colour. They told us this.

.....

By stating that it led to a criminal act you are begging the question. I'm going to repeat this because it seems all too easy for people to forget: killing is NOT in and of itself a crime. We do NOT have laws that make you absolutely liable for killing someone regardless of the circumstances.

Killing people for being black certainly is a crime. Insulting people for being black is too.

(Sorry - I messed up the code here)

[ 30. July 2013, 09:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh, are we back to the "Zimmerman hunted Martin down and shot him in cold blood" thing? It's funny, I could have sworn there's been 15 pages of thread where people have debunked that idea.
Except for "in cold blood", that's more or less what happened. Zimmerman "hunted Martin down" (or whatever verb you prefer to use for the kind of pursuit involved) and he shot Martin. These don't really seem to be facts in dispute.

That is why "hunted down" is not the correct phrase to use - it means that the whole point of following him was to shoot him, because that's what a hunter does. It twists the facts to fit your own narrative. By choosing to use that phrase, you are flat-out stating that Zimmerman's intent from the very start was to shoot Martin. You are claiming a motivational link between the following and the shooting that was not present.

quote:
What we've established is that a lot of people think it was totally reasonable for Zimmerman to pursue/stalk/hunt/whatever Martin, but that's not the same as pretending it didn't happen.

A lot of people think it was reasonable to keep an eye on Martin, because a lot of us think it's reasonable to seek to prevent criminals from having the free run of our neighbourhoods and we adknowledge that suspicion, by its very nature, will occasionally fall upon those who are actually innocent.

The problem is that you keep jumping straight from that to claiming that we're advocating summary execution of anyone acting suspiciously. I don't know why you're making that leap, but it is utterly unjustified and, frankly, dishonest.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]A lot of people think it was reasonable to keep an eye on Martin, because a lot of us think it's reasonable to seek to prevent criminals from having the free run of our neighbourhoods and we adknowledge that suspicion, by its very nature, will occasionally fall upon those who are actually innocent.

The problem is that you keep jumping straight from that to claiming that we're advocating summary execution of anyone acting suspiciously. I don't know why you're making that leap, but it is utterly unjustified and, frankly, dishonest.

Because carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by many the imaginings of a vigilante mentality.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by many the imaginings of a vigilante mentality.

No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by many the imaginings of a vigilante mentality.

I totally agree.

And so the villain here is US law & culture, NOT Zimmerman. He is simply one of many thousands of people who continue to operate (legally) within those parameters, specifically

- Vigilante culture
- Legality of too many weapons, and the 'right' to be armed
- Racism and prejudice

My frustration with the focus being placed on Zimmerman, that he's to blame, he should be in prison etc. is that it ignores two of the three elephants in the room above.

The third elephant (racism) is talked about, but only seemingly in a "was Zimmerman racist, was he not?", again ignoring the more important issue that in general black people get a rawer deal in the criminal system than whites, and so on.

I mean, we had a couple of pages discussing the statistics of whether or not Zimmerman was racist/ageist/sexist to only inform the police on young black males (which lilbuddha's link told us was the case).

Then moo shares a much more comprehensive link detailing the specific calls, and lo and behold, there were plenty of calls he made regarding white people, even one woman. So the whole debate on whether Zimmerman was right or not to "only report black males" is most likely redundant.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation around this case, one report says one thing, one says another. ISTM that different people on both sides of the argument want to hijack this story to tell the narrative that they want to tell, and are quite happy to twist the truth, or even make things up to fit that narrative.

And as a result, the more important issues that this case points towards get sidelined, and it just becomes an argument about how much of a bogeyman Zimmerman is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Goperryrevs, I could not agree more.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

The third elephant (racism) is talked about, but only seemingly in a "was Zimmerman racist, was he not?", again ignoring the more important issue that in general black people get a rawer deal in the criminal system than whites, and so on.

It's also about whether a black person in such a context might reasonably perceive racism in a white person's words or actions even if none might be intended. This is also part of the problem. Recall the "cracker" comment by Martin, a term traditionally used by blacks about whites who are seen as racists.

None of us can ever be entirely free of the effects of racism in a society where the social "rules of the road" have so long shaped by racism.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I fail to see how Martin could have known enough about Zimmerman to label him a racist.

Also, hasn't Moo already pointed out that Martin probably said a longer word, not just cracker?

Also, Zimmerman isn't white. Not in normal American terminology.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrev
There seems to be a lot of misinformation around this case, one report says one thing, one says another. ISTM that different people on both sides of the argument want to hijack this story to tell the narrative that they want to tell, and are quite happy to twist the truth, or even make things up to fit that narrative.

The media are responsible for a lot of this. In some cases they even tampered with the evidence to make Zimmermann appear evil.

When Zimmermann notified the police when he first saw Martin, he said that a man was loitering in the rain and acting in a peculiar manner. He said Martin might be on drugs. He said nothing about race. When the dispatcher asked whether the man was white, black, or Hispanic, Zimmermann answered, "He looks black." NBC news edited this to remove the dispatcher's question. Zimmermann's statement about the race of the man was made to appear as part of the beginning of the call.

Another news source (I forget which) altered the photos showing Zimmermann's injuries to make it appear that the injuries were very slight.

Recently The New Republic published an article about all of Zimmermann's phone calls to the dispatchers. The article said that Zimmermann had reported a seven-year-old black boy as being a suspicious character. In fact, Zimmermann's call makes it clear that he was concerned for the welfare of this child walking along a busy street. After a lot of complaints, the magazine printed a correction.

Many media reporters approach a specific situation with the story already written. They're sure they know what happened or they are so eager to advance the causes they care about that they are completely indifferent to truth and accuracy. I saw that first-hand after the Virginia Tech shootings.

Moo

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how Martin could have known enough about Zimmerman to label him a racist.

Also, hasn't Moo already pointed out that Martin probably said a longer word, not just cracker?

Anyway, I've always thought of cracker just being used for whites in general, can be derogatory, but not aimed specifically at white racists. A bit like goreh.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by the many imaginings of a vigilante mentality.
No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.

No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it.

[ 30. July 2013, 12:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how Martin could have known enough about Zimmerman to label him a racist.

Exactly the point, orfeo. He didn't. Neither person in this incident knew enough about the other to draw the conclusions each of them drew.

Zimmerman saw Martin as a burglar in the absence of any evidence Martin actually was one. Martin saw Zimmerman as a "white-ass cracker" in the absence of any evidence Zimmerman actually was one.

When you pour cake batter into a loaf pan, your cake comes out as a loaf. If you pour the exact same batter into a round pan, you get a round cake. Our expectations/biases/prejudices, any and/or all of them, are shaped by the social context in which we "bake." In a society long afflicted with (and in some ways built upon) racism, our individual thoughts and actions are often shaped, unconsciously, by racism -- and we're all, black, white, purple, green, victims of that racism (though we are victimized in very different ways).

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, hasn't Moo already pointed out that Martin probably said a longer word, not just cracker?

Also, Zimmerman isn't white. Not in normal American terminology.

"White-ass" is an intensifier adjective for "cracker." "Cracker" is an epithet meaning "ignorant racist white." "White-ass" is just a way of intensifying the contempt intended in the epithet "cracker." It's the functional equivalent of saying (with regard to a black person), "fucking nigger" instead of just "nigger."

The fact that M saw Z as white speaks to (A) Z was a stranger to M, and (B) it was dark and raining and things happened fairly fast in an adrenaline-heightened atmosphere, and (C) Z is inarguably paler in complexion than M.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by many the imaginings of a vigilante mentality.
I totally agree.

And so the villain here is US law & culture, NOT Zimmerman. He is simply one of many thousands of people who continue to operate (legally) within those parameters, specifically

- Vigilante culture
- Legality of too many weapons, and the 'right' to be armed
- Racism and prejudice

I completely agree that the legal landscape of much of the US is an "unindicted co-conspirator" in this tragedy. However, I do not agree that therefore Z is without guilt. In my younger days, I used to carry a concealed weapon. It made me considerably more aggressive than I would have been without the weapon on me. I suspect that Z would not have been following M were he not packing heat. But our responsibility is to recognize how these things affect us, and structure our lives in a manner that avoids needless excess on our part. For example, I stopped carrying a weapon once I had had a chance to reflect on how it was making me act. The fact that it was legal for me to carry one was not an excuse for me being an a**hole.

--Tom Clune

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
However, I do not agree that therefore Z is without guilt. In my younger days, I used to carry a concealed weapon. It made me considerably more aggressive than I would have been without the weapon on me. I suspect that Z would not have been following M were he not packing heat. But our responsibility is to recognize how these things affect us, and structure our lives in a manner that avoids needless excess on our part. For example, I stopped carrying a weapon once I had had a chance to reflect on how it was making me act. The fact that it was legal for me to carry one was not an excuse for me being an a**hole.

I agree with that, Tom. I don't think Zimmerman was blameless, but the limit of that guilt was (as you say) being an asshole, not criminal guilt. I think that anyone who carries a gun (or a knife, or any weapon) for "self-defence" should it ever be required is an asshole, because doing so simply increases the likelihood of a fatal tragedy occurring.

In the UK, the legal system seems to understand that, so, for example it's illegal to even carry a knife without good reason. There doesn't have to be any proof of intent to use. ISTM the US legal system is a long way behind our more civilised attitude in this.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
For example, I stopped carrying a weapon once I had had a chance to reflect on how it was making me act. --Tom Clune

Another co-conspirator in US culture is its tendency to encourage reaction rather than reflection. Thank you for being counter-cultural.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

"White-ass" is an intensifier adjective for "cracker." "Cracker" is an epithet meaning "ignorant racist white."

Is it? I thought it meant poor southern white, usually from the Appalachian mountains and most likely of Scottish descent. I've never heard it used to mean racist. It originally meant "braggart," but as the people became poorer, more anemic, and paler from living in the forested mountains, it also started to refer to their skin color. I do agree that it is the equivalent of the "n" word when directed at a white by an African American and points to Martin being much more of a racist than any evidence we have that Zimmerman is.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

In my experience, the way "cracker" is used in the U.S. is regional. When living in Texas, I definitely heard it used the way Porridge describes, but have not heard it used that way since I left.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

"White-ass" is an intensifier adjective for "cracker." "Cracker" is an epithet meaning "ignorant racist white."

Is it? I thought it meant poor southern white, usually from the Appalachian mountains and most likely of Scottish descent. I've never heard it used to mean racist. It originally meant "braggart," but as the people became poorer, more anemic, and paler from living in the forested mountains, it also started to refer to their skin color. I do agree that it is the equivalent of the "n" word when directed at a white by an African American and points to Martin being much more of a racist than any evidence we have that Zimmerman is.

Maybe there are regional differences. I've lived most of my life in the North, and have only ever heard this term when used by African-Americans as derogatory toward whites exhibiting racism toward them.

As to whether black victims of racism are being racist when they apply derogatory terms to whites, that's a whole 'nother discussion I frankly don't want to have. I've had it many times before, and I think it's a potential (possibly actual) endlessly circular unresolvable Dead Horse. If you or someone else wants to raise that question, I hope it's on a different thread. Hasn't this one grown enough tentacles already?

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.
No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it. [/QB]

You could use the same reply if someone said: "There is a fundamental difference between the execution of Nicolai Ceaucescu and the butchering of Sharon Tate."

Is it your brother? Run off with the family brain cell maybe?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.
No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it.
You could use the same reply if someone said: "There is a fundamental difference between the execution of Nicolai Ceaucescu and the butchering of Sharon Tate."

There is still no difference to the one who winds up dead.

Carrying weapons is stupid and wrong in my book, always will be.

[ 30. July 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

As to whether black victims of racism are being racist when they apply derogatory terms to whites, that's a whole 'nother discussion I frankly don't want to have. I've had it many times before, and I think it's a potential (possibly actual) endlessly circular unresolvable Dead Horse. If you or someone else wants to raise that question, I hope it's on a different thread. Hasn't this one grown enough tentacles already?

Wasn't it you who just raised the idea by suggesting that when Martin called Zimmerman a "white-assed cracker" he was demonstrating, not his own racism, but that he saw Zimmerman as a racist and so was even more justified in attacking Zimmerman? I find that wildly far fetched.

As to whether or not African Americans are being racist when they call whites by derogatory racist names, I was unaware there was any question about it. If you believe one race is superior or inferior to others (or as MLK said, "judge people by the color of their skin") you're a racist. Full stop. It's not an opinion, it's the dictionary's definition.

I see no reason to start another thread for my first post in 12 days. This is a discussion thread, you know, not Porridge's Collected Essays on White Privilege.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.
No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it.

In one case the person will end up dead regardless of what they do, in the other they will only end up dead if they attack the person who is keeping an eye on them. I'd call that a fairly important difference.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I do agree that it is the equivalent of the "n" word when directed at a white by an African American

The hell it is. That one feels the need to use a substitute for one and not the other is indicative of the this.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.
No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it.
In one case the person will end up dead regardless of what they do, in the other they will only end up dead if they attack the person who is keeping an eye on them. I'd call that a fairly important difference.

We live in the most deprived ward in England, it is not a 'safe' neighbourhood. Both of my sons have been attacked by people carrying knives. I am VERY pleased they were not, they could have attempted to retaliate with terrible consequences. In both instances they ran like the wind away from trouble - sensible boys imo.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wasn't it you who just raised the idea by suggesting that when Martin called Zimmerman a "white-assed cracker" he was demonstrating, not his own racism, but that he saw Zimmerman as a racist and so was even more justified in attacking Zimmerman? I find that wildly far fetched. [/QB]

I find it far-fetched, too. Perhaps you could point out where I stated that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman.

In point of fact, I think each party to this tragedy made unjustifiable assumptions about the other party, and each party performed actions that far exceeded what the situation called for.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In point of fact, I think each party to this tragedy made unjustifiable assumptions about the other party, and each party performed actions that far exceeded what the situation called for.

Poor word choice. Whether the assumptions were justifiable is up for debate (and has been for 15 pages).

I should have said the assumptions were unsupported. Zimmerman had no evidence that Martin was a burglar; Martin had no evidence that Zimmerman was racist or white.

[ 30. July 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Killing people for being black certainly is a crime. Insulting people for being black is too.

Huh? Insulting people for any reason is not generally a crime in the US. There's this little thing called "free speech" -- you might have heard of it.

There are situations where insulting someone for being black is criminal -- at work, for example, because racial harassment in the workplace is against the law. But it is not illegal for one person not acting in a public capacity to insult another on the street.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because carrying guns/knives/any kind of weapons can so easily lead to just that in the heat of an adrenaline fear filled moment - especially one stoked by the many imaginings of a vigilante mentality.
No, there remains a SIGNIFICANT difference between providing for self-defence in the event that your suspicions prove to be true and the suspect attacks you and carrying a weapon in order to kill the suspect.
No difference whatever to the person who ends up dead because of it.

This is the perfect illustration of the knee-jerk 'somebody died and I don't like it so there must be a crime' response that I have been commenting on regularly throughout the thread. Including in my last response to you.

A criminal trial is about the degree of responsibility. The fact that someone died is a given fact. Often, who killed them is ALSO a given fact. WE STILL HAVE A TRIAL because this doesn't automatically lead to a criminal conviction. I mean, how more obvious can it be? This case illustrates it, for goodness sake.

Of course it makes no difference to the person who is dead. But I'm sorry, the criminal justice system is not about the victim, and trying to make it into a place to make victims or the families of victims feel good is a recipe for injustice and is frankly one of the things wrong with popular perceptions of the legal system.

If you want to move to a system of 'a person is dead and someone has to pay' then we can do that, but be prepared for the consequences.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And yes, I realise you didnt say crime in the post quoted. You said it both before and after, in a way that illustrates you throw the word 'crime' around to mean 'bad thing I don't like'.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wasn't it you who just raised the idea by suggesting that when Martin called Zimmerman a "white-assed cracker" he was demonstrating, not his own racism, but that he saw Zimmerman as a racist and so was even more justified in attacking Zimmerman? I find that wildly far fetched.
I find it far-fetched, too. Perhaps you could point out where I stated that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman.

Porridge quote: "It's also about whether a black person in such a context might reasonably perceive racism in a white person's words or actions even if none might be intended. This is also part of the problem. Recall the "cracker" comment by Martin, a term traditionally used by blacks about whites who are seen as racists."

It sounded to me like you were saying the use of the cracker word meant Martin must have thought Zimmerman was a racist -- based on nothing but his skin color -- and so he "might reasonably perceive racism." If not that then what?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I do agree that it is the equivalent of the "n" word when directed at a white by an African American
The hell it is. That one feels the need to use a substitute for one and not the other is indicative of the this.

It might also be indicative of the fact that people lose careers for saying one and not much happens for saying the other. Ask Paula Deen about it.
------------------------

As to Orfeo's point, I too, have noticed the same things said over and over since the case started:

If Zimmerman had stayed home a child would still be alive!
An innocent child killed on his way home with candy!
A child is dead!
His parents are devastated!
Where is the justice?

All of those things could be said if a child ran into the street in front of a car. Not every death requires the death of another, even when the death is intentional.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

If you want to move to a system of 'a person is dead and someone has to pay' then we can do that, but be prepared for the consequences.

Can we declare Zimmerman's gun deodand at the same time?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Twilight: As to Orfeo's point, I too, have noticed the same things said over and over since the case started:

If Zimmerman had stayed home a child would still be alive!
An innocent child killed on his way home with candy!
A child is dead!
His parents are devastated!
Where is the justice?

All of those things could be said if a child ran into the street in front of a car.

This depends very much on whether the driver tried to avoid hitting the child.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wasn't it you who just raised the idea by suggesting that when Martin called Zimmerman a "white-assed cracker" he was demonstrating, not his own racism, but that he saw Zimmerman as a racist and so was even more justified in attacking Zimmerman? I find that wildly far fetched.
I find it far-fetched, too. Perhaps you could point out where I stated that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman.

Porridge quote: "It's also about whether a black person in such a context might reasonably perceive racism in a white person's words or actions even if none might be intended. This is also part of the problem. Recall the "cracker" comment by Martin, a term traditionally used by blacks about whites who are seen as racists."

It sounded to me like you were saying the use of the cracker word meant Martin must have thought Zimmerman was a racist -- based on nothing but his skin color -- and so he "might reasonably perceive racism." If not that then what?

Alas, I failed Mind-Reading 101, and (also alas) I am guilty (like most of us on this thread) of speculating about things I don't actually know.

All I was trying to raise here was the possibility -- as happened in the story I shared on this thread about being accused of racism by a former staffer -- that, in a context (US culture) where widespread racism is known to have existed for centuries, and where evidence of racism continues occasionally to crop up, it's understandable and unsurprising if Person A of one race interprets other-race Person B's words/actions as racist. Further, this could happen even in the complete absence of any consciously racist intent by Person B.

Of course I don't know what Martin thought. To me, the "white-ass cracker" remark sounds like he thought Zimmerman was white. To me, it also sounds very hostile. It might even suggest that Martin, at 17, approaching legal adulthood and beginning to interact more with the world outside his school and family, might have encountered racism on any number of previous occasions -- but that's sheer speculation.

If he had, though, he might be angry. He might lash out at a "white" stranger who seemed to be following him. Does any of this justify a physical attack? Only if, before the attack, Martin saw Zimmerman's gun handled in a way which suggested that Z might shoot M, and M's attack was an effort at self-defense. But that is simply more speculation.

Are/were either of these people overtly racist? I think it's possible; I can't say yes or no for sure. Are/were they unconsciously racist? I think it's possible; I can't say yes or no for sure. Did racism play any actual role in this death? I think it's possible; I can't say yes or no for sure.

What I am pretty sure of, though, is that the US's long history of racism has played a substantial role in how this case, and the jury's verdict, was received by the general public.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Twilight: As to Orfeo's point, I too, have noticed the same things said over and over since the case started:

If Zimmerman had stayed home a child would still be alive!
An innocent child killed on his way home with candy!
A child is dead!
His parents are devastated!
Where is the justice?

All of those things could be said if a child ran into the street in front of a car.
This depends very much on whether the driver tried to avoid hitting the child.

No it doesn't. The but-for causation gets satisfied either way. But for the driver leaving home, the child wouldn't have been hit.

This is precisely why this kind of causation argument is so useless. But for the American Revolution causing the British to use Australia as a penal colony, I wouldn't be sitting here in Hawaii typing on this message board.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I do agree that it is the equivalent of the "n" word when directed at a white by an African American
The hell it is. That one feels the need to use a substitute for one and not the other is indicative of the this.
It might also be indicative of the fact that people lose careers for saying one and not much happens for saying the other. Ask Paula Deen about it.

I meant what I posted, but I let anger control my response and I should not. I do not wish to play racist word comparison. Racism is wrong, no matter the direction.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Well said, Porridge! That's a pretty good summation of a lot of the things I've been thinking and trying to say as I've been reading and posting this thread.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: This is precisely why this kind of causation argument is so useless.

I don't believe much in causation argument, but I like the 'should have done anything reasonable to avoid' clause in the Dutch self-defence law.

Sticking with the example for a moment, if a driver hits a child, leaving his house in his car doesn't fall under 'doing anything reasonable to avoid'. Refraining from playing a cat-and-mouse game in his car with a kid does fall under 'doing anything reasonable to avoid'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sticking with the example for a moment, if a driver hits a child, leaving his house in his car doesn't fall under 'doing anything reasonable to avoid'. Refraining from playing a cat-and-mouse game in his car with a kid does fall under 'doing anything reasonable to avoid'.

The key thing for me is whether it's down to the prosecution to prove that the driver intended to hit the child, or whether it's down to the defence to prove that he'd done everything reasonable to avoid doing so. Do you assume innocence until guilt is proved, or do you assume guilt until innocence is proved?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: The key thing for me is whether it's down to the prosecution to prove that the driver intended to hit the child, or whether it's down to the defence to prove that he'd done everything reasonable to avoid doing so. Do you assume innocence until guilt is proved, or do you assume guilt until innocence is proved?

It isn't about intent: it's about having done everything within reason to avoid a dangerous situation.

In Zimmerman's case, it would be very easy to prove that he didn't do everything within reason to avoid a confrontation, becasue he didn't heed the police officer's advice to stay away. So, under Dutch law he would be guilty.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't about intent: it's about having done everything within reason to avoid a dangerous situation.

It's about whether you have a presumption of innocence or not. Having to prove that you've done everything reasonable to avoid a dangerous situation looks an awful lot like a presumption of guilt to me.

Not to mention that a legal requirement to avoid dangerous situations is effectively a criminals' charter. No police in the immediate vicinity? Then go for it - nobody else is allowed to stop you!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Having to prove that you've done everything reasonable to avoid a dangerous situation looks an awful lot like a presumption of guilt to me.

In this case, Zimmerman wouldn't have to prove that he'd done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation. The burden can be on the prosecution: it's easy for them to prove that he didn't.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Not to mention that a legal requirement to avoid dangerous situations is effectively a criminals' charter. No police in the immediate vicinity? Then go for it - nobody else is allowed to stop you!

For the umpteenth time, people can still try to stop the criminal, within limits (these limits exist in the UK too). The only thing is: they can't claim self-defence if they kill the criminal in trying to stop him, much less if they already brought a weapon.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
becasue he didn't heed the police officer's advice to stay away

I still think advice is too strong a word (even though it's weaker than the "dispatcher told him to stay in the car" interpretations). As other posters have described, the dispatchers are explicitly told not to advise callers, so as not to put themselves in the position where they could be sued.

I don't think it's unreasonable that Zimmerman interpreted the conversation (and here's the transcript again)

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah"
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "OK"

in a way that, although it wasn't required that he followed Martin, that he was doing the police a favour by doing so. If I knew a friend needed something from the shops, and I was on the phone saying that I could pick it up for them, them saying "I don't need you to do that" probably wouldn't mean "Don't do it", but more like "Don't put yourself out".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: I still think advice is too strong a word (even though it's weaker than the "dispatcher told him to stay in the car" interpretations).

It doesn't matter much how you call it; Zimmerman was explicitly offered a way out of this situation. Under jurisdictions that only accept self-defence claims if you've taken a reasonable effort to avoid the confrontation, this would be enough.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It doesn't matter much how you call it; Zimmerman was explicitly offered a way out of this situation. Under jurisdictions that only accept self-defence claims if you've taken a reasonable effort to avoid the confrontation, this would be enough.

Sure, but as we've gone over already those jurisdictions are ones where vigilantism isn't ingrained in the culture, and it's illegal to carry weapons.

So, trying to transplant the Zimmerman case into an alien culture is ultimately a futile exercise, and unhelpful in that it totally ignores the US context.

Which is why the problem is US law and culture, and not Zimmerman. He just did the same as thousands of other Americans would have done, and would have felt morally and been legally entitled to do.

Dealing with the issue by wanting to change self-defence laws but ignoring gun laws and vigilantism, to me, is like straining the gnat but ignoring the camel.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: Which is why the problem is US law and culture

With this part I completely agree.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
goperryrevs: Dealing with the issue by wanting to change self-defence laws but ignoring gun laws and vigilantism, to me, is like straining the gnat but ignoring the camel.

Oh, I have as much issue with the gun laws (if not more) than with the self-defence laws. The fact that I singled one of these aspects out on this thread doesn't mean that I don't have issue with the other.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Fair do's.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
goperryrevs: I still think advice is too strong a word (even though it's weaker than the "dispatcher told him to stay in the car" interpretations).
It doesn't matter much how you call it; Zimmerman was explicitly offered a way out of this situation. Under jurisdictions that only accept self-defence claims if you've taken a reasonable effort to avoid the confrontation, this would be enough.

Saying he was offered a way out of this situation makes a lot of presumptions about the situation he was in. You can't use hindsight to say it was clear the situation was going to end in a physical confrontation!!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Saying he was offered a way out of this situation makes a lot of presumptions about the situation he was in. You can't use hindsight to say it was clear the situation was going to end in a physical confrontation!!

No, but under a saner self-defence law (for which I take the Dutch law as an example) you can only claim self-defence if you've done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation. Zimmerman was offered a way to avoid a confrontation, and he didn't take it.

Under a saner gun law, bringing a weapon with you also means that you're already preparing for the possibility of a physical confrontation.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, but under a saner self-defence law (for which I take the Dutch law as an example) you can only claim self-defence if you've done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation. Zimmerman was offered a way to avoid a confrontation, and he didn't take it.

Unmitigated nonsense. At the point to which you refer (the conversation between Z and the 911 dispatcher), there was no "situation" and no "confrontation". Following someone from a distance of tens of yards (which Z must have been doing, given that he lost sight of M) is not confrontational. It might be unnerving and/or scary, but it is not confrontational.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: Following someone from a distance of tens of yards (which Z must have been doing, given that he lost sight of M) is not confrontational. It might be unnerving and/or scary, but it is not confrontational.

I'm sure that under some jurisdictions, it will count as 'not having done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sure that under some jurisdictions, it will count as 'not having done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.

By which logic, a man walking down the street who is attacked by a mugger and defends himself is likewise guilty of 'not having done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation' because he should have taken a cab - he should expect that if he walks down these streets looking like he might have valuables that he's going to be attacked.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Leorning Cniht: By which logic, a man walking down the street who is attacked by a mugger and defends himself is likewise guilty of 'not having done everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation' because he should have taken a cab - he should expect that if he walks down these streets looking like he might have valuables that he's going to be attacked.

No, this doesn't fall under reasonable.

Avoiding to walk on the street because you might be attacked doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.

Avoiding to look for a person when a policeman already has suggested that you shouldn't does fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation', especially if you bring a weapon which shows that you're prepared for a confrontation.

This isn't rocket science.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Avoiding to walk on the street because you might be attacked doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.

OK, good - we agree.

quote:

Avoiding to look for a person when a policeman already has suggested that you shouldn't does fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation',

We have had the discussion about whether the 911 dispatcher's comments were a veiled instruction to stop, or a standard liability-evading device, or what. I don't think it's relevant.

See, in the example of the man walking down the street, he may well have been advised by a policeman that he shouldn't walk through that part of town wearing nice clothes, because he'll probably be attacked.

To me, that is sensible public safety advice, along the lines of "keep your windows locked and don't leave bags on display in your parked car." All sensible advice, but if I do leave my window open, or my jacket on the passenger's seat in my car, I am not in any sense responsible for causing a thief to break in.

quote:

This isn't rocket science.

No, it isn't, but we seem to be using different units anyway.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(Once again, I'm well aware that Dutch law isn't valid in Florida, I'm only using it as an example because I think legislation was a big part of the problem here, and to stress this I'm giving an exemple of a different legislation. And oh yeah, IANAL.)

quote:
Leorning Cniht: See, in the example of the man walking down the street, he may well have been advised by a policeman that he shouldn't walk through that part of town wearing nice clothes, because he'll probably be attacked.

I guess if he did walk through this part of town anyway and was attacked, and his only resort was to kill his attacker, he would be able to claim self-defence.

I think that a Dutch judge would consider that if you do something to prevent a crime beyond calling the police, you are already entering a situation with potential risk, for yourself, for your suspect and for the bystanders. This doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'. Worse if you bring a weapon (even if it's only a brick) because this indicates that you're aware of the risk.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

It might at this point be useful to recall that both Z and M were walking around inside a "gated community" in which Z lived and M was visiting.

There is a reasonable expectation that the "gate" excludes those with no business to be there.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes, I've been wondering how "gated" it really was.

I visited a gated community, once. There was a gate, and a guard, and you had to check in. (Both day and night.)

Presumably, the gate was intended to be staffed all the time. But would there have been someone to cover breaks?

These days, I imagine residents have card keys to use at the gate. But having a guard would make people *feel* safer, at least.

Somehow, though, there'd been a series of burglaries in Z's gated community. So the burglars either found a way in, or were from inside.

(Just thinking out loud.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, I've been wondering how "gated" it really was.

Here is the community on google maps. You can see actual gates across the entrances on Twin Trees road to the North and East, but there is easy pedestrian access across the grass to the North West from Oregon Ave, cutting between buildings on to Retreat View Circle. This is probably the route that Martin took to get back from the 7-11.

So it's "gated" in the sense that there is some impediment to a strange car getting in, but no impediment to a strange person.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that a Dutch judge would consider that if you do something to prevent a crime beyond calling the police, you are already entering a situation with potential risk, for yourself, for your suspect and for the bystanders. This doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.

So basically, we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent a crime because if we do and something goes wrong we'll be convicted as murderers and sent to prison for a long time?

Still looks like a criminal's charter to me.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: So basically, we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent a crime because if we do and something goes wrong we'll be convicted as murderers and sent to prison for a long time?

Still looks like a criminal's charter to me.

You are starting to sound like a broken record on this one. Shall I just tape my answer too?

Trying to prevent a crime is still allowed (with limits). But if you end up killing the criminal you can't claim self-defence anymore, because it it you who initiated a potentially dangerous situation.

(Besides, the criminal didn't get away with anything in the example you gave here. In fact, he ended up dead.)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that a Dutch judge would consider that if you do something to prevent a crime beyond calling the police, you are already entering a situation with potential risk, for yourself, for your suspect and for the bystanders. This doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.
So basically, we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent a crime because if we do and something goes wrong we'll be convicted as murderers and sent to prison for a long time?

Still looks like a criminal's charter to me.

While I can see the logic of a "leave it to the professionals" approach to crimes purely against (insured) property, those aren't the only sorts of crime. Burglars usually limit themselves to filling their pockets with your grandmother's jewellery and a few DVDs, but sometimes they also assault or rape.

Is it right to risk a confrontation to prevent a mugging? A sexual assault? A murder? And even if you* think it wrong, or unwise, to do so, is it really your position that someone who rushes in to prevent a gang rape, and when one of the attackers turns on him, hits back, should be guilty of murder and actually go to prison for most of his life if the would-be rapist dies?

I think there probably are occasions when letting some trivial crime go is the sensible thing to do because it isn't worth anyone getting hurt over. I'm not going to try to tackle someone I see leaping the ticket barrier, for example. But if someone braver or stronger than I am did challenge that, and the fare dodger tried to hit her, I certainly wouldn't think the challenger had lost her right of self-defence as a result. And for any crime more serious that fare-dodging, intervention is surely even more justified and appropriate.

(* to LeRoc - I'm broadly agreeing with Marvin)

[ 02. August 2013, 13:22: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: And even if you* think it wrong, or unwise, to do so, is it really your position that someone who rushes in to prevent a gang rape, and when one of the attackers turns on him, hits back, should be guilty of murder and actually go to prison for most of his life if the would-be rapist dies?

The judge might lower the punishment because of the circumstances, but he would be guilty. Probably more so if the would-be rapist turned out to be innocent.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Eliab: And even if you* think it wrong, or unwise, to do so, is it really your position that someone who rushes in to prevent a gang rape, and when one of the attackers turns on him, hits back, should be guilty of murder and actually go to prison for most of his life if the would-be rapist dies?
The judge might lower the punishment because of the circumstances, but he would be guilty. Probably more so if the would-be rapist turned out to be innocent.

I find that more shocking that Zimmerman's acquittal.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: I find that more shocking that Zimmerman's acquittal.

You have a right to find that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm sorry, I've thought about this some more. If a gang rape is already in progress, then probably you could argue that it wasn't you who turned this into a dangerous situation, the situation was already dangerous. Maybe it would be possible to claim self-defence in such a situation, but not if you just rushed in and killed the rapist.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent a crime because if we do and something goes wrong we'll be convicted as murderers and sent to prison for a long time?

Still looks like a criminal's charter to me.

1. To return to ground already covered, what crime did Z's actions prevent?

2. What does "intervene" mean? Is it "intervening" to call the police about a crime actually taking place?

3. Is it "intervening" to call the police about something out-of-the-usual (but not a crime)?

4. Is it "intervening" when a civilian places himself at risk trying to determine whether a crime is taking place?

5. Is it "intervening" when a civilian place himself at risk trying to stop an actual crime in progress?

During my brief teaching stint, I underwent a required training on what to do, and what to tell students to do, if a shooting, a la Virginia Tech, were to occur on our campus. It was conducted by personnel from city and state police as well as campus security.

Without going into detail, the gist of the training was this: keep yourself and students safe (with details on how to up your safety quotient). Do not intervene. Why? Because it makes first responders' jobs harder and riskier and puts more lives at stake).

Personally, I can see little point in spending taxpayer dollars on maintaining armed, trained, professional police forces if we are now all expected to prevent and investigate potential crime ourselves.

While I think Z was hyper-suspicious and may have had a hero complex, I see nothing wrong with his calling the police about a loiterer. In my view, that's an appropriate intervention. A kid/guy loitering around would not raise my own suspicions, but I'd certainly drop a dime if I saw strange civilians trying doors and windows at a neighbor's place, and hope my neighbors would do likewise. I would never expect my neighbors to follow someone, thereby putting themselves potentially in harm's way, for the sake of protecting my property.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that a Dutch judge would consider that if you do something to prevent a crime beyond calling the police, you are already entering a situation with potential risk, for yourself, for your suspect and for the bystanders. This doesn't fall under 'doing everything reasonable to avoid a confrontation'.
So basically, we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent a crime because if we do and something goes wrong we'll be convicted as murderers and sent to prison for a long time?

Still looks like a criminal's charter to me.

Last year I was lucky enough to meet some Team GB Taekwondoo-ers, and to have a training session with one of their trainers. One point he made very clearly, up front, was that the better you get at any martial art, the more responsible you have to be about how you use it outside of the sporting arena, as you risk being seen as the aggressor if you get involved in, say, a pub brawl (because, unlike the other party, you know you are capable of inflicting serious injury.)

He said that this did not mean that you had to walk away from every situation, but rather that you go into such situations in a non-aggressive way. Supposing you tell someone to take his hand off your wife's bum in the pub and he then fronts up to you outside, you raise both hands, palms out, and say "I don't want any trouble" - any witnesses will see that you were attempting to avoid confrontation, while you still maintain an alert, forward-facing position, arms ready to form a guard for face and head.

So, yes, you can try to prevent crime, but if, as a result, the potential perpetrator turns on you, the first thing you do is make it clear that you don't want to hurt them.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Trying to prevent a crime is still allowed (with limits). But if you end up killing the criminal you can't claim self-defence anymore, because it it you who initiated a potentially dangerous situation.

No, the criminal is the one who initiated a dangerous situation by committing a crime.

That's the problem. You give the impression that someone breaking a window to burgle a house is just going about his normal, safe daily business until a nasty evil bastard takes it upon themselves to try to stop him. Whereas I see it as some scumbag trying to ruin an innocent family's lives until a hero turns up and stops him.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So, yes, you can try to prevent crime, but if, as a result, the potential perpetrator turns on you, the first thing you do is make it clear that you don't want to hurt them.

But if the perp does turn on you despite that, it's all OK.

Whereas under LeRoc's proposed legislation, even with all those precautions you'd be considered the aggressor for daring to intervene in the first place.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Whereas under LeRoc's proposed legislation, even with all those precautions you'd be considered the aggressor for daring to intervene in the first place.

It isn't about being considered the aggressor, it's about whether or not you are guilty of a crime. The crime here is killing someone. Under Dutch law this ceases to be a crime when certain conditions are fulfilled (the same is true in the UK, although the conditions might be different). If you don't take every reasonable step to avoid a confrontation, you don't meet these conditions.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: But if the perp does turn on you despite that, it's all OK.

No, it's not OK. The perp is still guilty (if he lives).

[ 02. August 2013, 14:41: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So, yes, you can try to prevent crime, but if, as a result, the potential perpetrator turns on you, the first thing you do is make it clear that you don't want to hurt them.
But if the perp does turn on you despite that, it's all OK.

Yes, I think that's where I'm at.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The crime here is killing someone.

Killing someone isn't a crime. Murder is, and manslaughter is, but they have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is manifestly not the case in the UK that killing someone is automatically a crime unless the accused can prove his innocence. A succesful appeal to self-defence doesn't mean you committed a crime but were let off, it means no crime took place.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Trying to prevent a crime is still allowed (with limits). But if you end up killing the criminal you can't claim self-defence anymore, because it it you who initiated a potentially dangerous situation.
No, the criminal is the one who initiated a dangerous situation by committing a crime.

Like "Walking While Black"?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Killing someone isn't a crime. Murder is, and manslaughter is, but they have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is manifestly not the case in the UK that killing someone is automatically a crime unless the accused can prove his innocence. A succesful appeal to self-defence doesn't mean you committed a crime but were let off, it means no crime took place.

We're arguing semantics here, I think it is the same in the Netherlands.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
We're arguing semantics here

You seem to be asserting that under Netherlands law, someone doing something which is perfectly legal, like challenging a violent or dishonest criminal, loses their right legally to defend themselves if that criminal attacks them. That certainly is not the case in E&W.

I'm less clear whether you are arguing that Netherlands law is morally right on this point - at the start I thought you were, but maybe you aren't. Such a law seems to me to be morally unjustifiable. If I'm allowed to take reasonable steps to try to stop a crime (and clearly, I ought to be) and as a result someone attacks me with the intention of causing physical harm, why should the law then say I must choose between suffering injury or death if I don't defend myself, or prison if I do?

In English law, self defence has to be reasonable and proportionate, which I think is right (stabbing someone who has only threatened to push you isn't justifiable self defence), but you seem to be arguing for a position that someone trying to stop a criminal is not merely bound to defend herself proportionately (as I think we would all agree), but that she actually loses all rights to claim self defence because she is in the situation as a volunteer. Why should that be, if trying to stop a criminal is, in itself, both lawful and admirable?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: You seem to be asserting that under Netherlands law, someone doing something which is perfectly legal, like challenging a violent or dishonest criminal, loses their right legally to defend themselves if that criminal attacks them.

If someone challenges a violent or dishonest criminal, and the police has already suggested that this isn't a good idea, and if furthermore this person has already prepared for defending himself (by bringing a weapon), then he loses his right to claim self-defence. Self-defence wasn't a last resort here.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like "Walking While Black"?

I don't claim to know what actually happened in the Zimmerman case, but isn't it a possible interpretation that even if Zimmerman had followed Martin for "walking while black", he only shot him when Martin attacked him?

If the jury believed that, (and believed that shooting was a reasonable and proportionate response to the attack, if such a consideration applied under local laws) then surely they were right to acquit him of murder. They might have convicted him of "being an over-suspicious, dangerous racist", had that been an offence on the indictment, but not, if they believed his evidence about the shooting, of being a murderer.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like "Walking While Black"?
I don't claim to know what actually happened in the Zimmerman case, but isn't it a possible interpretation that even if Zimmerman had followed Martin for "walking while black", he only shot him when Martin attacked him?

I'm sure any number of things are possible, but after all this discussion of "perps" and stopping criminals I'm left wondering exactly what crime of Martin's Zimmerman was supposedly stopping when he decided to chase him down?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The crime here is killing someone.
Killing someone isn't a crime. Murder is, and manslaughter is, but they have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is manifestly not the case in the UK that killing someone is automatically a crime unless the accused can prove his innocence. A succesful appeal to self-defence doesn't mean you committed a crime but were let off, it means no crime took place.

Not quite right in law here* but nearly there. The NSW Crimes Act says:

418 Self-defence—when available

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

In subsequent sections, it places the burden upon the prosecution in its case to negative self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, and the provides that if the self-defence is excessive, the accused is guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

*The law in England (Wales and NI) and NZ used be much the same and I imagine that it is in Canada also.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
['m sure any number of things are possible, but after all this discussion of "perps" and stopping criminals I'm left wondering exactly what crime of Martin's Zimmerman was supposedly stopping when he decided to chase him down?

But there is no evidence that Zimmerman "chased Martin down". The evidence we have is that Zimmerman was concerned that there had been a recent spate of burglaries and he wanted to alert police that another may have been underway. Having alerted them, he decided to keep a track on Martin, a task which he dismally failed. Martin then suddenly appeared and started to assault Zimmerman.

Now, that was the evidence at trial. It was consistent with what Zimmerman originally told police. Importantly, his account of the assault was consistent with the evidence that the back of Zimmerman's clothing was damp, but the front of Martin's knees; and with the account from a person at some distance that he saw a fight with the person wearing Martin's jacket on top.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

The question is . . .

And I asked it above . . .

What crime did Zimmerman prevent when he began to follow Martin?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But there is no evidence that Zimmerman "chased Martin down".

Why don't you consider Zimmerman's admission to the 911 operator that he was pursuing Martin to be evidence?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But there is no evidence that Zimmerman "chased Martin down".
Why don't you consider Zimmerman's admission to the 911 operator that he was pursuing Martin to be evidence?

Yes it is, but then he lost Martin and that ended any pursuit.

And who knows whether Martin would have committed any crime had Zimmerman not started to follow him. Quite probably none, but we just don't know. The only evidence we have is that he thought he might have a fight.

[ 03. August 2013, 01:55: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Apparently no one is willing or able to answer a plain and simple question.

What crime did Zimmerman prevent by following Martin in his car? What crime did he prevent when he got out of that car and began following Martin on foot?

What crime did Zimmerman intervene in?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Apparently no one is willing or able to answer a plain and simple question.

What crime did Zimmerman prevent by following Martin in his car? What crime did he prevent when he got out of that car and began following Martin on foot?

What crime did Zimmerman intervene in?

Zimmerman was the victim of an assault by Martin. Is that sufficient intervention for your purposes? Sadly Zimmerman did not prevent that crime.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Zimmerman was the victim of an assault by Martin.

He says.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Zimmerman was the victim of an assault by Martin.
He says.

Yes, and in my post of 11.18 this morning, I set out a range of good reasons why Zimmerman would be a credible witness.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And other people have posted lists of evidence that he's not. Ho hum. What we do know is that he killed someone after following them in his car with a gun.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, and that's all we know, in the same sense that we know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. And I can't now recall seeing any posts which suggest good reasons why Zimmerman should not have been accepted as a credible witness. Let's face it - at the time Zimmerman first gave his account to the police, he probably was not thinking of such matters as the back of his clothing, and Martin's knees being wet, and did not know of the witness who saw a person wearing a jacket the same colour as Martin's on top of Zimmerman. The account Zimmerman then gave and to which he adhered are consistent with those pieces of information.

As others have said, the real reason Martin was shot is that both vigilantism and gun-carrying have become accepted parts of US society.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And of course, he would not have had any knowledge of the phone call Martin had with his girlfriend, in which he said that he thought he might have have a fight that night.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What crime did Zimmerman prevent by following Martin in his car? What crime did he prevent when he got out of that car and began following Martin on foot?

He was attempting to prevent a burglary. Unless you're suggesting that there's a 100%, foolproof way to identify which suspicious characters are actually going to commit a crime and which are acting suspiciously for other reasons, that's all there is to it.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Is there any requirement for Neighbourhood Watch people to clearly identify themselves as such - as police need to if they are trying to stop someone? Did Zimmerman ever do this?

In the UK, armed police are required to CLEARLY id themselves as such... in uniform, screaming "ARMED POLICE! STAND STILL!" etc..

From Martin's perspective, wasn't he accosted by a lighter-hued bloke in plain clothes... and therefore the tension ramped up further?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

Question: Is pursuing/following someone at a single instance actually against the law? Is it a crime that one can claim self-defence as a motive for and thus get away from? Also, how severe is such a crime (following/pursuing someone) and to what offense is it a reasonable response, if one wants to claim self-defence?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He was attempting to prevent a burglary. Unless you're suggesting that there's a 100%, foolproof way to identify which suspicious characters are actually going to commit a crime and which are acting suspiciously for other reasons, that's all there is to it.

A few years ago I was in my car pulling into my drive when a young man, with his hoodie over his head and face, suddenly charged up to the door and opened it. I was convinced I was about to be attacked and/or my car stolen.

It was my son!

His hood was up because it was a cold, windy day

If I were Zimmerman I reckon I'd now have one dead son.

[Roll Eyes]

<eta typo>

[ 03. August 2013, 10:00: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A few years ago I was in my car pulling into my drive when a young man, with his hoodie over his head and face, suddenly charged up to the door and opened it. I was convinced I was about to be attacked and/or my car stolen.

It was my son!

His hood was up because it was a cold, windy day

If I were Zimmerman I reckon I'd now have one dead son.

I seriously doubt that.

Zimmermann shot Martin after Martin had already inflicted injury on him and apparently intended to continue inflicting injury. As I have said several times on this thread, head injuries can kill people.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And still nobody answers the question I ask. Is nobody willing to admit the fact that when Z STARTED FOLLOWING Martin, Martin was doing nothing. He was standing around.

Honestly -- when you observe somebody standing around, do you immediately conclude he's plotting a break-in?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I think the point is that if Zimmerman had spotted a crime of some sort, he'd actually be entitled to go further than following him, but that the law doesn't disallow keeping an eye on someone for even very slight suspicion. Some will add "while carrying a gun", whereas others will call it "while regularly outfitted in that part of America". IANAL, but it is my impression so far that it's not really a crime, even if possibly morally dubious. Disregarding the subsequent events, at the point where Zimmerman is attacked (assuming his testimony to be right or at least decent enough to create reasonable doubt) I don't think he was begging for it* unless there are other events in between that we do not know anything about.

*I am aware of the resemblance to calling Z a rape victim here, but that's not what I'm intending to do. Instead, I want to spark a discussion regarding the provocation factor of following someone, and hence I use a similar expression but not the same, in order to address similar sentiments but not to equate the two.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And still nobody answers the question I ask. Is nobody willing to admit the fact that when Z STARTED FOLLOWING Martin, Martin was doing nothing. He was standing around.

Honestly -- when you observe somebody standing around, do you immediately conclude he's plotting a break-in?

Depends. What color is he and how gated is the community?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Once more:
Florida law allows for acting if one fears for one's life or safety, it does not place many parameters for justifying said fear. A Black man, in the American south, being followed by a white man (his perception of (Zimmerman), whilst doing nothing suspicious or illegal has an extremely reasonable fear of such. Therefore, under Florida law, Martin did not attack Zimmerman.

ETA: General response to thread, not individual

[ 03. August 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Therefore, under Florida law, Martin did not attack Zimmerman.

Or, rather, under Florida law, Martin may not have committed a crime if indeed he attacked Zimmerman for the reasons you suggest.

Since self defence laws usually work on some sort of 'reasonable' or 'honest' belief test, it is entirely possible for two people, honestly and reasonably mistaken, to end up fighting each other without either being, in law, guilty of an offence. Unusual, certainly, but possible.

That makes the situation a tragedy. No one denies that. One or both of the men involved may be responsible, in some way, for that tragedy developing. It does not follow that one of them must be guilty of murder.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Some racist morons hate other people... simple fact. I had a black friend in Seattle call Asians "slant-eye chinkies" and was cheering when the black folks in Los Angeles burned down Korean stores during the Rodney King riots. I have heard Asians say nasty things about whites, blacks, Mexicans, and other Asians. Here in scary old Georgia, I have heard many gay/lesbian people say racist, hateful things about Mexicans, blacks, Asians, Russians, "Travelers", women, men, straight people, democrats... it goes on and on and on.

ALL of it is evil but I've never seen such systemic injustice against people with dark skin as happens in this country. I hate saying I'm an American sometimes because some of us brag and brag about what a great country this is and rah rah rah, how wonderfully diverse we are... and what a land of opportunity this is... when they leave off this racist caveat: As long as you're not one of them darkies!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Once more:
Florida law allows for acting if one fears for one's life or safety, it does not place many parameters for justifying said fear. A Black man, in the American south, being followed by a white man (his perception of (Zimmerman), whilst doing nothing suspicious or illegal has an extremely reasonable fear of such. Therefore, under Florida law, Martin did not attack Zimmerman.

ETA: General response to thread, not individual

If Martin thought he was about to be attacked by Zimmerman, then yes. Some days ago, I suggested that perhaps Martin thought that Zimmerman may have been following him for sexual purposes. There is of course, and never can be, any evidence of that or of any other fear Martin may have had. However, any jury hearing a hypothetical assault case against Martin would have to consider his evidence of such a fear against the evidence from Martin's girlfriend that he said he might have a fight that night. It would also have to consider other evidence that Zimmerman had lost track of Martin and that Martin suddenly re-appeared and assaulted Zimmerman.

These would all be matters for the jury to weigh up, bearing in mind (assuming that Florida law on the defence of self-defence is that same as here) that the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Martin had not acted in self-defence.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Bear in mind that Zimmermann lost sight of Martin when he was about two hundred yards from the place where he was staying. I'm sure he could run faster than Zimmermann, who was not physically fit.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm sure he could run faster than Zimmermann, who was not physically fit.

You've lost me. Why should that matter?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm sure he could run faster than Zimmermann, who was not physically fit.
You've lost me. Why should that matter?

If Martin was worried about his physical safety, he could run to the house where he was staying.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm sure he could run faster than Zimmermann, who was not physically fit.
You've lost me. Why should that matter?
If Martin was worried about his physical safety, he could run to the house where he was staying.

1. How would Martin know about Zimmerman's physical fitness?

2. We're told Zimmerman lost sight of him for some while. If Trayvon thought Zimmerman had gone away, why would he run home? This isn't yet another case of "what right did he have to be outside in the rain" is it?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're told Zimmerman lost sight of him for some while. If Trayvon thought Zimmerman had gone away, why would he run home? This isn't yet another case of "what right did he have to be outside in the rain" is it?

He had a right to be out in the rain, but he did not have the right to hit Zimmermann as long as there were other alternatives.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're told Zimmerman lost sight of him for some while. If Trayvon thought Zimmerman had gone away, why would he run home? This isn't yet another case of "what right did he have to be outside in the rain" is it?
He had a right to be out in the rain, but he did not have the right to hit Zimmermann as long as there were other alternatives.

Moo

Isn't the key twisted variable in this case the fact that under Florida law, Trayvon (as well as Zimmermann) did NOT have to utilize any other alternatives as long as they believed they were under attack or about to be attacked.

This of course, may not be the standard in many/most other jurisdictions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're told Zimmerman lost sight of him for some while. If Trayvon thought Zimmerman had gone away, why would he run home? This isn't yet another case of "what right did he have to be outside in the rain" is it?
He had a right to be out in the rain, but he did not have the right to hit Zimmermann as long as there were other alternatives.

Moo

It is my understanding that the existence of other alternatives doesn't matter to a "stand your ground" law. The whole point of that law is that you shouldn't HAVE to flee. You have a right to be there, so shoot, shoot, shoot.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is my understanding that the existence of other alternatives doesn't matter to a "stand your ground" law.

Yes and no. SYG means that you don't have to consider "retreat" as a reasonable alternative. If "ignoring the other guy" or "talking to him" is a reasonable alternative, even SYG doesn't give you license to blow him away.

Once it looks like an attack is imminent, though, it's not reasonable to expect you to ignore him.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Isn't the key twisted variable in this case the fact that under Florida law, Trayvon (as well as Zimmermann) did NOT have to utilize any other alternatives as long as they believed they were under attack or about to be attacked.

Do you believe that anyone who believes they are being followed has the right to physically attack the other person?

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht
Once it looks like an attack is imminent, though, it's not reasonable to expect you to ignore him.

The question is whether Martin believed an attack was imminent. His phone conversation with his girlfriend indicates that he saw Zimmermann as 'creepy', but does not suggest that he saw Zimmermann as an immediate threat.

Moo

[ 04. August 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And the corresponding question is: Do you believe that a person who observes another individual standing around is justified in assuming he might be a burglar, and on that basis following him?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And the corresponding question is: Do you believe that a person who observes another individual standing around is justified in assuming he might be a burglar, and on that basis following him?

Following someone is not a crime. Physically attacking them in the absence of imminent threat is a crime.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And the corresponding question is: Do you believe that a person who observes another individual standing around is justified in assuming he might be a burglar, and on that basis following him?

In a general sense, while it may not be a crime, it is not desirable behaviour. But people do not just stand around here, save at the station. There are no shops or other commercial premises for a km or more. If there had been a spate of burglaries over the last few weeks, and the person was not someone I knew lived in the area, I'd be a bit suspicious to say the least. Being someone of mature years, and not a member of a local neighbourhood watch, I think my own actions may be limited to ringing the police and some neighbours.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

The question is about the assumption, not the action. Why is anyone justified in believing that another person is a burglar when that other person is not engaged in burgling, or even in actions likely to lead to burgling, such as trying windows or doors?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The question is about the assumption, not the action. Why is anyone justified in believing that another person is a burglar when that other person is not engaged in burgling, or even in actions likely to lead to burgling, such as trying windows or doors?

It would not be believing that someone was a burglar, but may be given that there has been a spate of burglaries and that here, at least, people do not just hang around, by themselves, at night. They may where you live - I do not know.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Following someone is not a crime.

But it is threatening behavior. Physically attacking someone who has been following you may well be wanting to get the first punch in before they kill you.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Following someone is not a crime.
But it is threatening behavior. Physically attacking someone who has been following you may well be wanting to get the first punch in before they kill you.

You can always make verbal threats first.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

How do we know he didn't?

For that matter, Zimmerman had the same option: he could have called out to Martin. "Hey, kid: are you lost?"

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[qb]Following someone is not a crime.
But it is threatening behavior./QB]

It's called stalking.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]
[QB] Physically attacking someone who has been following you may well be wanting to get the first punch in before they kill you.

As has been noted by several of my Black male peers. In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.

I can't speak for the rest of the European-dominant world (e.g. the UK) but that is exactly how it is now and always has been in the U.S., and not just in the South.

[ 05. August 2013, 04:05: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It would not be believing that someone was a burglar, but may be given that there has been a spate of burglaries and that here, at least, people do not just hang around, by themselves, at night. They may where you live - I do not know.

I submit that, if you don't think somebody might be a burglar or up to some other misbehavior, you have no reason to follow him once he quits standing around and moves on.

You follow him, and what's more, attempt to do so surreptitiously (that is, you DON'T call out to him), only if you are trying to confirm your suspicion that he's up to no good.

And what malik said,in spades (no rude puns intended).

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
As has been noted by several of my Black male peers. In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.

I can't speak for the rest of the European-dominant world (e.g. the UK) but that is exactly how it is now and always has been in the U.S., and not just in the South.

As a white male resident of the U.S., I can tell you the reverse can also be true - there are some places where being a white person walking down the street will get you attention you don't want from the locals, as well. Been there, done that, got the bruises to prove it.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Following someone is not a crime.
But it is threatening behavior. Physically attacking someone who has been following you may well be wanting to get the first punch in before they kill you.

Or, more likely, it may be called "assault and battery" - which is convenient, since that's what it is.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
As has been noted by several of my Black male peers. In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.

I can't speak for the rest of the European-dominant world (e.g. the UK) but that is exactly how it is now and always has been in the U.S., and not just in the South.
As a white male resident of the U.S., I can tell you the reverse can also be true - there are some places where being a white person walking down the street will get you attention you don't want from the locals, as well. Been there, done that, got the bruises to prove it.

Yes, African-Americans are not the only people to be in regular danger because of the color of their skin. Still, if you a white American, it looks a little bit bad to respond to stories of racism by saying you've had similar experiences. Unless the African-Americans who have spoken up are lying or delusional* we as white people are infinitely less likely to have such experiences. Do we really need to try to top their experiences?

*And I for one am quite sure they are neither

[ 05. August 2013, 16:55: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.

What I've noticed on this thread is a strong implication that if you believe (as I and Moo, who watched every minute of the trial believe, and Tortuf who is a lawyer believe) that there simply wasn't enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him then we "must not understand the day-to-day reality of life as a perpetual profiling target."

The two things are not mutually exclusive. I do, and always have, believed that racial profiling exists. I am in favor of stronger gun laws that would prohibit the sale of handguns to most people. I also believe that Zimmerman was probably acting within the legal definition of self-defense at the moment he shot Trayvon Martin, or at least there is not enough proof otherwise to send him to prison.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Still, if you a white American, it looks a little bit bad to respond to stories of racism by saying you've had similar experiences. Unless the African-Americans who have spoken up are lying or delusional* we as white people are infinitely less likely to have such experiences. Do we really need to try to top their experiences?

This is similar to the response you directed at me when I shared with another African American poster the experiences of my son. My post was intended, though not received, as a comfort. I was trying to tell her that I understood the pain of having your male relatives targeted by police since I had experienced it myself and to say, yes it's a frightening thing.

I'm not sure why you would conclude that by trying to express understanding through shared experiences we are trying to "top" their experience. If a friend's father is dying of cancer and I say, "Oh, I'm so sorry, my father died of cancer, too, I know it's awful," would you accuse me of trying to top their grief? Maybe so.

At the same time I was accused of trying to say
that racial profiling doesn't exist or that it is exaggerated. Again, that is a false assumption. It's perfectly possible to believe that racial profiling is a problem and still state that you as a white person have had some bad experiences with police.

The refusal to allow white people to share their experience, to claim that such experience just simply is irrelevant and painless compared to any similar situation suffered by a black person tells us that we can never understand the other and that any attempt toward empathy is wasted. It is divisive and unhelpful. It becomes a "you can't touch this," contest of Most Victimized Ever. It says you can't understand so don't even try. How can this help us go forward?

Few of us are descendant of aristocrats and kings. Most people can look to the past to find persecution and mistreatment from others. Many of the white people in America today are here because they were starving to death in their native countries while the people in power took their last coins as rent. While African Americans were suffering as slaves, Irish people were starving to death and Jewish people can usually win any contest of mistreatment.

What are we to do? If some of us are required to carry a burden of guilt based on the sins of our grandfathers then how do you determine whose ancestors were plantation owners and whose were abolitionists? If you are a person with medium brown skin indicating both white and black ancestors do you have to despise part of yourself?

I believe we should be working for equal rights for everyone. Where profiling exists it should be ended. Where voting laws are keeping people from being fairly represented then they should be changed. We should work to make sure everyone has good health care, good schooling and decent food. But how does it help to keep trying to shame certain people based on their skin color? When has anyone's mental health or behavior improved because they carried a burden of guilt?

This is a new century and we should be busy putting the entire idea of race to an end. Most anthropologists agree that the very idea of humans coming in different "races," like different dog breeds is a false, unscientific, construct. Initially it was a way for explorers to describe the peoples they had seen on other continents. It meant absolutely nothing but outward evidence of adaptation to climate. Dictionary attempts to describe different races are laughable, often the people most upset about the treatment of their "race," clearly have ancestors of the very people they see as the enemy.

To me it is a backward step to try to convince others that our particular race is the most mistreated or misunderstood when it's time for all of us to quit identifying ourselves by any race at all. We should simply quit checking those boxes and stop describing ourselves or others with those labels and move on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What I've noticed on this thread is a strong implication that if you believe (as I and Moo, who watched every minute of the trial believe, and Tortuf who is a lawyer believe) that there simply wasn't enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict him then we "must not understand the day-to-day reality of life as a perpetual profiling target."

I cannot speak for malik3000, but my comments were regarding the implication that Martin was at primary fault. And trying to help people see how Zimmerman's following him could be seen as a threat.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

This is similar to the response you directed at me when I shared with another African American poster the experiences of my son. My post was intended, though not received, as a comfort. I was trying to tell her that I understood the pain of having your male relatives targeted by police since I had experienced it myself and to say, yes it's a frightening thing.

I'm not sure why you would conclude that by trying to express understanding through shared experiences we are trying to "top" their experience.

Often anecdotes of a minor injustice are used to attempt to nullify incidences of major injustice. My apology for my misunderstanding your intent.
TE]Originally posted by Twilight:

We should simply quit checking those boxes and stop describing ourselves or others with those labels and move on. [/QUOTE]
I have hear this argument many times and, on the surface, it sounds reasonable. The problem is those boxes have been checked, and the injustices continue.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
As has been noted by several of my Black male peers. In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.

That might explain why Martin attacked Zimmerman, of course (if, in fact, he did do that). I don't see that it has much to do with the question of Zimmerman's guilt.

It is quite possible that both men were honestly and understandably convinced that the other one was the aggressor. As a result, a terrible mistake was made resulting in a death of an innocent person. That doesn't mean that the survivor is a criminal who should go to prison for the rest of his life.

It doesn't follow, as some people seem to assume, that if Martin was innocent, Zimmerman must be guilty. Or the other way around, for that matter. If the jury thought that when Zimmerman shot Martin he was within the legal definition of self defence, then they were right to acquit him. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Martin's actions were reasonable, from his point of view.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Porridge, the clouds outside are very black indeed. While the forecast is for heavy rain, there’s none actually falling. Do you take your raincoat and umbrella? And in any event, as my post makes clear, I was talking of our particular suburb, where people just do not stand around by themselves in the street at night. Given the general attitude here, I would not pursue that person, or even track him. Rather, I would warn neighbours and perhaps call the police. With the very strict gun control laws here, I would not be armed either.

I agree with Malik 3000 that there has been long-standing profile targeting of blacks in the US. Here, there is now a lot of similar targeting of those from Middle Eastern backgrounds. Neither is pleasant, neither is accurate. But the question being discussed is the acquittal of Zimmerman, not these systemic attitudes.

As Moo says, and I have said in the past, the verdict was reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence before them. There is nothing to suggest that there was some other evidence which could have been presented but was somehow withheld by the prosecution. A reasonable jury, properly directed, could not have convicted Zimmerman on the evidence presented in court.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

It doesn't follow, as some people seem to assume, that if Martin was innocent, Zimmerman must be guilty. Or the other way around, for that matter. If the jury thought that when Zimmerman shot Martin he was within the legal definition of self defence, then they were right to acquit him. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Martin's actions were reasonable, from his point of view.

Very, very good point.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, thanks Eliab.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Yes, African-Americans are not the only people to be in regular danger because of the color of their skin. Still, if you a white American, it looks a little bit bad to respond to stories of racism by saying you've had similar experiences. Unless the African-Americans who have spoken up are lying or delusional* we as white people are infinitely less likely to have such experiences. Do we really need to try to top their experiences?

*And I for one am quite sure they are neither

Why does it look bad to offer another perspective on the one-sided story being told here?

No attempt to "top" made - just a gentle reminder that "African-American" does not necessarily, in every case, equal "victim". It can, and does, occur that an African-Americans can be the aggressor in a conflict (as well as victim, or disinterested bystander, or any other classification of people one would like to make). A few folks here seem to have no concept of that possibility - white guilt is an amazing thing sometimes... [Roll Eyes]

Racism is bad. Period. No matter who does it. But not every conflict between an African-American person and a non-African-American person is the result of racism. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The refusal to allow white people to share their experience, to claim that such experience just simply is irrelevant and painless compared to any similar situation suffered by a black person tells us that we can never understand the other and that any attempt toward empathy is wasted. It is divisive and unhelpful. It becomes a "you can't touch this," contest of Most Victimized Ever. It says you can't understand so don't even try. How can this help us go forward?

This.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Jbohn, certainly African-American does not mean victim. God forbid! However, to say that we as white people in America or Britain experience much racism compared with people of color is laughable. Certain people's experiences will indubitably differ, but that is only anecdotal.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Racism is bad. Period. No matter who does it. But not every conflict between an African-American person and a non-African-American person is the result of racism. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Except some seem to be claiming that a cigar is only ever a cigar, and that there's no such thing as racism in America anymore. Or, at least, that anything short of wearing a white hood or a swastika armband can't possibly be racist. Sometimes not even then. Whenever there's some kind of racist incident in the news we get treated to commentators (usually, but not always, white) spinning ever-more implausible explanations rather than accept the simple idea that a certain action was racist. Eventually it gets a "who're you gonna believe: me or your lyin' eyes?" feel to it.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

Gwai/Crœsos - fair. My experience undoubtedly influences my thoughts on the matter; there are those folks (and I deal with a lot of them in my professional life) who will find racism anywhere and everywhere, because they're always looking for it. I was simply trying to suggest that sometimes the racism folks are finding is more projection than reality.

Of course racism exists. In all groups, against all groups. And we need to work toward ending it wherever it exists. But that isn't helped by seeing a racist around every corner, any more than <sarcasm>McCarthyism rid the world of the scourge of Communism. </sarcasm>

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Gwai/Crœsos - fair. My experience undoubtedly influences my thoughts on the matter; there are those folks (and I deal with a lot of them in my professional life) who will find racism anywhere and everywhere, because they're always looking for it. I was simply trying to suggest that sometimes the racism folks are finding is more projection than reality.

Of course racism exists.

Most racism deniers will admit, as above, that generic racism exists in society, and yet are unwilling to describe any action short of a literal Klan rally as racist. In other words, according to the deniers racism exists, but there's never any specifically racist incidents other than a few egregious and extreme outliers. It's a blind spot I've always found a bit curious.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc, pace Crœsos:

Most people who have a tendency to attribute racism in any and every case of tension between a black and a non-black person will admit that generic misattribution of racism exists in society, and yet are unwilling to describe any action short of an "all non-blacks are black-oppressors" rally as generic misattribution of racism. In other words, according to the deniers of misattribution of racism, it exists, but there's never any specifically incidents other than a few egregious and extreme outliers. It's a blind spot I've always found a bit curious.

[ 06. August 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

The central point here, at least for me, is not only that racism exists, but that racism victimizes everyone it touches.

I, for one, am not willing to claim that one of these parties was "innocent" and the other "guilty." Martin ended up dead, and it certainly looks, from afar, as though racism may be implicated in that death.

Martin also, at least as far as we know, assaulted Zimmerman -- that was the immediate cause (again so far as we know) of his death.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, while acquitted of serious charges, faces a future which looks, at best, pretty grim. Getting a job may pose problems. Staying married may pose problems. Renting an apartment, ditto. Plus he may spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. Racism might be implicated here as well.

Again, I wish more than ever we could mount a real national effort to lay our ghosts, to actually listen to each other, our fears, our burdens, our hostility, our hopes.

Croesos is right: "racism," as we discuss it, is always somewhere else, carried on by someone else, often in some other time, and it's never now, never us, and never under our own noses.

How can we cure a disease no one will ever admit to having?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
... It is quite possible that both men were honestly and understandably convinced that the other one was the aggressor. As a result, a terrible mistake was made resulting in a death of an innocent person. That doesn't mean that the survivor is a criminal who should go to prison for the rest of his life. ...

The justice system has determined that George Zimmerman was not guilty, and that's that. I myself still worry about who was responsible for what happened, and I am still stuck on these facts:

One person decided to take a gun with him just to go to the grocery store.

One person, who was a Neighbourhood Watch volunteer and had other training, decided to immediately call the police to report an innocent teenager.

One person, armed with a gun, decided to follow an innocent person in a vehicle and on foot.

One person had all the advantages - maturity, training, a vehicle, a weapon, and direct contact with the 911 operator.

Zimmerman may be legally not guilty, but as far as I'm concerned, he's 99 and 44/100 % responsible. He's responsible for being an obsessive, hyperactive wanna-be cop with a concealed weapon. He's responsible because he didn't just ask Trayvon Martin, "Hi, I'm George, may I help you?" He's responsible for immediately assuming that an innocent person might be a criminal and he's responsible for choosing to follow that person.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
As has been noted by several of my Black male peers. In all the posting that has been done on this thread it seems clear to me that some people, not having had to walk in those shoes, simply are unable to inwardly understand the day-to-day real as real can be reality of life as a perpetual profiling target, and a million more pages of this thread won't change their minds.
That might explain why Martin attacked Zimmerman, of course (if, in fact, he did do that). I don't see that it has much to do with the question of Zimmerman's guilt.

It is quite possible that both men were honestly and understandably convinced that the other one was the aggressor. As a result, a terrible mistake was made resulting in a death of an innocent person. That doesn't mean that the survivor is a criminal who should go to prison for the rest of his life.

It doesn't follow, as some people seem to assume, that if Martin was innocent, Zimmerman must be guilty. Or the other way around, for that matter. If the jury thought that when Zimmerman shot Martin he was within the legal definition of self defence, then they were right to acquit him. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Martin's actions were reasonable, from his point of view.

Exactly. I don't know how many pages ago I pointed this out, so I feel it's worth repeating. A trial is the defendant vs the State, not the defendant vs the victim.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Gwai/Crœsos - fair. My experience undoubtedly influences my thoughts on the matter; there are those folks (and I deal with a lot of them in my professional life) who will find racism anywhere and everywhere, because they're always looking for it. I was simply trying to suggest that sometimes the racism folks are finding is more projection than reality.

Of course racism exists.
Most racism deniers will admit, as above, that generic racism exists in society, and yet are unwilling to describe any action short of a literal Klan rally as racist. In other words, according to the deniers racism exists, but there's never any specifically racist incidents other than a few egregious and extreme outliers. It's a blind spot I've always found a bit curious.

Since you quoted me, I'll assume you're labeling me a "racism denier" here. Funny. I could have sworn I was describing racism a few posts back - just not the garden-variety "white on black" racism you seem to find everywhere you look:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As a white male resident of the U.S., I can tell you the reverse can also be true - there are some places where being a white person walking down the street will get you attention you don't want from the locals, as well. Been there, done that, got the bruises to prove it.

Race may well have played a part in the confrontation that led to Trayvon Martin's death. We'll never know for certain, I suspect; Martin is dead, and Zimmerman isn't talking. Although we *do* have Martin's remarks about the "creepy-ass cracker" - though that can't be racism, of course, as Martin wasn't white. [brick wall]

Chesterbelloc: [Overused]

Well played.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn
Race may well have played a part in the confrontation that led to Trayvon Martin's death. We'll never know for certain, I suspect...

During the trial the prosecutors specifically said that this was not a racial crime.

I think the worst actions in the case were done by the media. They seized upon this as a racial matter, and put out reports that suppressed other information. The first photo of Martin that came out was a picture of a child. I don't know how many years old it was. Some of the brief news reports left the impression that a white man had shot a black child who was walking down the street with a bag of candy. The coverage didn't get much better.

I followed the trial closely, and I also read what my morning newspaper had to say. At the trial it was very clear that many prosecution witnesses said things very favorable for the defense; the media gave no indication of this. They also underplayed the strength of the defense case. All this made it appear that the verdict was a gross miscarriage of justice. I wondered if the media wanted race riots.

America has serious problems with racial injustice, but inaccurate information only fans the flames.

Moo

Posted by Winnow (# 5656) on :

As a UU, I read a fair amount from various religious perspectives. I read a Jewish woman's blog, and came across this post from her about a year ago ... seems appropriate, somehow:

=====================

It was an accident. I didn't mean to break it, Mama. It's not my fault; it was an accident.
And then he promptly burst into heart-wrenching sobs.

I scooped my five year old into my arms and rocked him until his tears stopped.

I know that it was an accident and I know that he didn't mean to break it.
But the fact remains that the Lenox frame that we received as a wedding present is irreparably broken. And the truth is that it is Jacob's fault.

That's how intentions often work.
Things that we meant to do, but didn't.
Or things that we didn't mean to do, but did anyway.

You are right, my son, when you say that you didn't mean to break the frame. But sometimes the intention is less significant than the consequence. And for that, you must take responsibility.
A hard lesson.

True teshuvah, though, comes not only from recognizing our intentions. It comes once we have taken responsibility for our actions or lack thereof.

The shards have been swept.
And the tears are long dried.
Only time will reveal whether Jacob recognizes his responsibility for my broken picture frame.

==================

The verdict may very well have been the only one possible under the circumstances. But Mr. Zimmerman has a lot of soul-searching to do, I think.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A trial is the defendant vs the State, not the defendant vs the victim.

Technically, yes. But Americans (lay people, at least) tend to view it as defendant vs. victim. This is reinforced by TV and movies.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A trial is the defendant vs the State, not the defendant vs the victim.
Technically, yes. But Americans (lay people, at least) tend to view it as defendant vs. victim. This is reinforced by TV and movies.

I would also say, technically, but not practically.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As a white male resident of the U.S., I can tell you the reverse can also be true - there are some places where being a white person walking down the street will get you attention you don't want from the locals, as well. Been there, done that, got the bruises to prove it.
Race may well have played a part in the confrontation that led to Trayvon Martin's death. We'll never know for certain, I suspect; Martin is dead, and Zimmerman isn't talking. Although we *do* have Martin's remarks about the "creepy-ass cracker" - though that can't be racism, of course, as Martin wasn't white.

Yes, "Whites" are the target of violence by "Blacks" as well as the reverse case, and no violence is good. But there is not an equivalence. THERE. IS. NOT. AN EQUIVALENCE.

As I noted above, the average European-American male does not have the experience of being a 24-7 profiling target. as do basically all African-American males in a White world, whether they are wearing hoodies or suits. (And that's not to say African-American females are not also targeted btw)

Chauncey DeVega's blog, We Are Respectable Negroes blog addresses the use of the term "cracker" :

quote:
"Black folks yelling cracker did not systematically deny whites their civil rights, burn them alive, enslave and rape them by the millions, mutilate their bodies, or leave them hanging from tree during spectacular lynchings. Likewise, African-Americans never enforced a several centuries long regime of racial terrorism against white people, dehumanizing them through the use of language intended to legitimate their oppression and exploitation."

There is not an equivalence. [brick wall]

[ 08. August 2013, 03:27: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Yes, "Whites" are the target of violence by "Blacks" as well as the reverse case, and no violence is good. But there is not an equivalence. THERE. IS. NOT. AN EQUIVALENCE.

There is, and there isn't, and here's why:

There is not an equivalence in the collective effects of sustained racial attacks and suspicion. As you point out, and as the President mentioned some time ago, basically all black people in the US have been followed around stores by security guards, because the guard has assumed that the black person might be a thief. Etc., etc. - whilst white people might be victims of racial discrimination and attacks on occasion, these things are comparatively rare, and white people do not go through their lives expecting to be victims of racism.

There is an equivalence, because individual acts of racism are not collective. When person A encounters person B, who has a different skin tone, or accent, or style of dress, he has two choices - to treat person B as another human individual, or to be prejudiced against B because he has the wrong skin, wrong clothing or wrong accent.

That is a choice that you make each time you encounter another person, and a white person choosing to beat up a black person makes the same choice as a black person choosing to beat up a white person, who makes the same choice as someone choosing to beat up a "goth" or a nerd or whoever else.

The collective effects on the ensemble of black people are not the same as on the ensemble of white people, because of the differing statistics (and yes, this includes a past history of racial prejudice) but the individual act is the same.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The collective effects on the ensemble of black people are not the same as on the ensemble of white people, because of the differing statistics (and yes, this includes a past history of racial prejudice) but the individual act is the same.

The collective effect of the past denies the effect of the individual act being the same.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is an equivalence, because individual acts of racism are not collective.

I disagree. It's not an either/or, it's both/and. An act of racist violence is often intended to intimidate all members of the racial group victimized, not just the specific person against whom the violence is perpetrated. Redlining certain neighborhoods isn't just an isolated series of actions against a certain number of individuals, it's also meant to send a message to the group discriminated against whether they ever wanted to move to that neighborhood or not. A criminal justice system that disproportionately targets certain racial groups isn't just a series of accused criminals receiving unjust punishments, it's also meant to intimidate every single person fitting the targeted profile.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The collective effect of the past denies the effect of the individual act being the same.

That is exactly why I said that the effect was different, because of the collective effects. The effect is different, but the actual racist act is the same.

If you're loading straws onto the camel, each act of placing a straw is the same. The fact that the final straw made the camel collapse, whereas there was little obvious effect from the previous straws doesn't make the act of placing the last straw any different from the straw before it.

Or consider someone who walks down the street and yells "fat ass" at a fat person. In one universe, the victim shrugs it off. In another universe, this is the final straw that causes the victim to go home and kill him/herself. Big difference in effect, but same act.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Exactly what lilBuddha said. Also what Croesos said -- it's not either/or, it's both/and. (which. btw, is true of so many things -- limiting our thinking to just either/or is one of the biggest banes of human existence.)

Speaking generally, the White camel has not had as many straws placed on his/her back as has the Black camel. The Black camel certainly feels the difference. And the straw-placer has no excuse for not knowing the difference if he or she will only open the eyes of her/his God-given mind. Willful ignorance is not an excuse. To re-state what I quoted above -- Whites were not, by the millions, kidnapped, enslaved, raped, tortured, and dehumanized in the most profoundly disrespectful manner. However Blacks were, at the hands of Whites. Again, no equivalence.

The fact that some individuals -- not in different universes but in the same universe, have been able to enure themselves to this situation and others have been crushed by it, does not change the reality of the above. Indeed it just adds to the tragedy of the situation.

[ 08. August 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Winnow:
As a UU, I read a fair amount from various religious perspectives. I read a Jewish woman's blog, and came across this post from her about a year ago ... seems appropriate, somehow:

=====================

It was an accident. I didn't mean to break it, Mama. It's not my fault; it was an accident.
And then he promptly burst into heart-wrenching sobs.

I scooped my five year old into my arms and rocked him until his tears stopped.

I know that it was an accident and I know that he didn't mean to break it.
But the fact remains that the Lenox frame that we received as a wedding present is irreparably broken. And the truth is that it is Jacob's fault.

That's how intentions often work.
Things that we meant to do, but didn't.
Or things that we didn't mean to do, but did anyway.

You are right, my son, when you say that you didn't mean to break the frame. But sometimes the intention is less significant than the consequence. And for that, you must take responsibility.
A hard lesson.

True teshuvah, though, comes not only from recognizing our intentions. It comes once we have taken responsibility for our actions or lack thereof.

The shards have been swept.
And the tears are long dried.
Only time will reveal whether Jacob recognizes his responsibility for my broken picture frame.

==================

I'll try to look past the indications that this woman is rather materialistic and unforgiving of a five year old child's lack of fine motor skills and take it as I think you intended, a metaphor for when we withhold forgiveness until we are satisfied that the perpetrator is fully cognizant of his responsibility and guilt.

From what I've read about Zimmerman's statements since the trial ended he isn't bearing as much guilt as I think I would if I had carried a gun into a situation that resulted in a young person's death by that gun. But then I think his refusal to say that he has regrets about that night and would do things differently is probably, at least partly, do to all the hatred that has been voiced against him. He is on the defensive in a way I can barely imagine.

Taking this woman's poem to Malik's larger points (Malik please correct me where I'm misunderstanding you,) I can see the metaphor extended to it's greatest length.

Malik seems to be saying that no black vs white crime should ever be judged alone, apart from history. Until white people, in large numbers, are enslaved, raped, murdered and lynched by black people then we should not expect to be treated equally. Until a proportionate representative of white people fill the prisons, black criminals should be let go. Until enough O.J. Simpsons (of whom evidence seems to point to guilt) are sent home, to equal the number of African-Americans who have been sent to jail or lynched without due evidence. Until the police drive on past enough young black men on the streets and only stop white men, regardless of descriptions called in -- we wont be "even."

White people will never voice enough apology or suffer enough guilt, or suffer enough in general, to satisfy him and like the mother in the poem he will sit and wait and withhold forgiveness and follow his own definitions of equality and justice.

If that's the case then so be it, but be aware that it puts whites in the position of either perpetual self-hatred, or, like Zimmerman, a sort of blanket, defensive denial. There is no chance of coming together in understanding and love.

I'll add a third white position that I see sometimes among my fellow white liberals -- a belief that if they agree strongly enough with Malik's position and do enough public self-flogging, that will somehow set them apart from other whites and so they feel that all the hatred against whites they encounter and read is directed at everyone else but them. I think they would be surprised at how little that weighs in their favor and how temporary it is. Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Until white people, in large numbers, are enslaved, raped, murdered and lynched by black people then we should not expect to be treated equally.

Isn't this a bit tautological? You're arguing that because white people are treated differently (not enslaved, raped, murdered, lynched, etc.) they don't expect to be treated equally. That's pretty much the definition of white privilege; the idea that you won't be treated the same as darker-hued individuals. Although I think what you're getting at is the idea that we should work to maintain the pretense of equal treatment in unequal circumstances.

Which gets to the heart of your complaints about anti-white discrimination. Black American's fears about white racism are mostly about being enslaved, raped, murdered, lynched, discriminated against on the job, or when getting a mortgage, or any number of other very negative consequences.

As you and Chesterbelloc have ably illustrated, white fears of black racism mostly concern worrying that blacks will notice that any of the above is happening and get upset about it. These are not comparable. The former is based on an assessment of real-world hazards. The latter is based on the arrogant assumption that you have the right and authority to dictate what other people think about their own situation.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.

I'm not familiar with the composition of the 1988 Pulitzer Jury on Fiction. Are you sure it was an all-white body? Even if so, aren't you essentially arguing that Toni Morrison's trust has been "bought" with a Pulitzer and that she's illegitimately withholding it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Twilight,

No. It is not necessary or wanted that white people suffer equally. Only that they understand the effect that suffering.
No guilt, no self-recrimination; just awareness.
I do not agree with Ms. Morrison, but I do understand.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sorry for the double post.

Just wished to add that it is simply black and white, melanin v. lack; anyone who has suffered for what they are and not what they have done bears a similar burden.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Thank you, Twilight, for your thoughtful and thought-filled responses to my postings. You raise some interesting and pertinent issues that deserve addressing IMHO, issues that have indeed been on my mind as well. They deserve a more thought-out response than I can properly give them right at this moment, but I will try to address them when I get a breather from some physical-world activities.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
From what I've read about Zimmerman's statements since the trial ended he isn't bearing as much guilt as I think I would if I had carried a gun into a situation that resulted in a young person's death by that gun. But then I think his refusal to say that he has regrets about that night and would do things differently is probably, at least partly, do to all the hatred that has been voiced against him. He is on the defensive in a way I can barely imagine.

That, to which we can probably add the potential prospect of having to face a civil prosecution. If they're any good, his lawyers will have advised him to be careful what he says about how he feels about the incident lest it should be taken as self-incriminatory.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As you and Chesterbelloc have ably illustrated, white fears of black racism mostly concern worrying that blacks will notice that any of the above is happening and get upset about it. These are not comparable. The former is based on an assessment of real-world hazards. The latter is based on the arrogant assumption that you have the right and authority to dictate what other people think about their own situation.

Um, bullshit. I was making a rhetorical point by turning your own accusation against you: if it's disingenuous only to admit to theoretical cases of racism against black people and never to accept any actual examples of it, it is just as unjust never to admit that any particular case of violence against a black person by a non-black might not be motivated by racist prejudice. In this case, there is scant evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by a racist mindset. But some people seem deeply invested in making it out to be a racially motivated attack. Cui bono?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Which gets to the heart of your complaints about anti-white discrimination.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.
I'm not familiar with the composition of the 1988 Pulitzer Jury on Fiction. Are you sure it was an all-white body? Even if so, aren't you essentially arguing that Toni Morrison's trust has been "bought" with a Pulitzer and that she's illegitimately withholding it?

I'm sorry if I have seemed to complain about "anti-white discrimination." As things stand now I actually don't think it is a problem, I was only arguing against what Malik seemed to be suggesting in his post that, I thought, asked us, in future, to consider the history of white against black oppression when we take a white man like Zimmerman to trail.

As for the Pulitzer committee, I didn't say they were all white. I just used them (the white members of the group) as an example of white people I might expect Morrison to feel trust toward as they have shown such goodwill toward her. No, the prize may not be a special reason to trust them but where is her reason to mistrust them?
-------------

Malik -- thank you so much for considering my posts as they are intended -- an attempt at better understanding. [Overused]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As for the Pulitzer committee, I didn't say they were all white. I just used them (the white members of the group) . . .

Isn't it reassuring when you can just make the assumption that powerful people in your field will almost always have the same general background as you?

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
. . . as an example of white people I might expect Morrison to feel trust toward as they have shown such goodwill toward her. No, the prize may not be a special reason to trust them but where is her reason to mistrust them?

Is that how trust works? Not something to be earned, but something to be demanded as a default condition? I'm not as familiar with the specifics of Ms. Morrison's biography as you so I can't say whether there's any particular reason or past experience for why she doesn't automatically trust white people. I don't even know the context of the quote you're citing. I can, however, think of a lot of reasons why a typical, non-specific black American born into the Great Depression would find the words "trust me, I'm white!" unconvincing.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.

Can you provide a citation for this?

Since she's a fairly famous person and you claim she's said this "many times", I'd imagine you would be able to provide a link to one of these instances...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

Speaking generally, the White camel has not had as many straws placed on his/her back as has the Black camel.

Sure, but to follow your argument, you are claiming that a white person who racially abuses a black man (in the US) is a worse person than if that same white person racially abuses an American of Indian* origin (because we'd all agree that Indians, as a class, experience less racial prejudice than black people in the US).

And I just don't believe that in the slightest. I'll agree that the cumulative effect on black people is worse than the cumulative effect on Indians, which is worse than the cumulative effect on Italians, or Irish, or whoever, but I'm not prepared to accept that a racist is a better person because his animus is against Indians rather than black people.

*For the avoidance of doubt, Indian, from India - not Native American.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A trial is the defendant vs the State, not the defendant vs the victim.
Technically, yes. But Americans (lay people, at least) tend to view it as defendant vs. victim. This is reinforced by TV and movies.
I would also say, technically, but not practically.

Why not practically? Suppose that Zimmerman was convicted. What does Martin 'win' as a result?

Nothing. His family may have won a warm moral glow of some kind.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person
Can you provide a citation for this?

In this interview Ms. Morrison says

quote:
"My father never trusted any white person at all, would not let them in his house, insurance people and so on. Luckily my mother was entirely different, she was always judging people one at a time. "

I don't think that statement is compatible with "Toni Morrison doesn't trust white people."

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.
Can you provide a citation for this?

Since she's a fairly famous person and you claim she's said this "many times", I'd imagine you would be able to provide a link to one of these instances...

No, sorry, I don't have a link. I used to see her on Oprah fairly often in the 1990's and that's where she would say things about her father disliking whites and her own distrust of them.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Toni Morrison has said many times that she would never trust any white person and that includes all of us even the white liberals she teaches college with and the whites who awarded her the Pulitzer prize.
Can you provide a citation for this?

Since she's a fairly famous person and you claim she's said this "many times", I'd imagine you would be able to provide a link to one of these instances...
No, sorry, I don't have a link. I used to see her on Oprah fairly often in the 1990's and that's where she would say things about her father disliking whites and her own distrust of them.

Then I'm pretty sure you misheard or misunderstood what she was saying. I found a few references to her recollections of her parents' attitudes (like the one cited by Leorning Cniht above) - I'm fairly confident that if she had repeatedly said on TV that she would "never trust any white person" this would have left plenty of traces for search engines to dredge up. And surely Fox News would have mentioned such controversial utterances when Obama awarded her the Medal of Freedom, instead of merely calling her "the first African American woman to win the Nobel Prize, whose poetic prose and visionary force places her among our most important authors."

{eta: omit needless words}

[ 09. August 2013, 02:21: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why not practically? Suppose that Zimmerman was convicted. What does Martin 'win' as a result?

Nothing. His family may have won a warm moral glow of some kind.

By American sentiments, M would've won justice. (Presuming Z was guilty.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why not practically? Suppose that Zimmerman was convicted. What does Martin 'win' as a result?

Nothing. His family may have won a warm moral glow of some kind.
By American sentiments, M would've won justice. (Presuming Z was guilty.)

The next black kid who WON'T get shot because his respective Zimmerman knew he couldn't get away with it -- THAT kid would win HIS FUCKING LIFE.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A trial is the defendant vs the State, not the defendant vs the victim.
Technically, yes. But Americans (lay people, at least) tend to view it as defendant vs. victim. This is reinforced by TV and movies.
I would also say, technically, but not practically.
Why not practically? Suppose that Zimmerman was convicted. What does Martin 'win' as a result?

Nothing. His family may have won a warm moral glow of some kind.

What I meant was, in practice, the victim is often tried as well. Think "she deserved to be raped for how she was dressed."
Standard say don't, in practices it happens.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why not practically? Suppose that Zimmerman was convicted. What does Martin 'win' as a result?

Nothing. His family may have won a warm moral glow of some kind.
By American sentiments, M would've won justice. (Presuming Z was guilty.)
The next black kid who WON'T get shot because his respective Zimmerman knew he couldn't get away with it -- THAT kid would win HIS FUCKING LIFE.

I call bullshit. Unless you're still proposing, with a serious lack of evidence, that this was murder. If it was manslaughter than it's pretty damn difficult to deter people from committing manslaughter, GIVEN THAT THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT IT ISN'T INTENDED.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I call bullshit. Unless you're still proposing, with a serious lack of evidence, that this was murder. If it was manslaughter than it's pretty damn difficult to deter people from committing manslaughter, GIVEN THAT THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT IT ISN'T INTENDED.

Call away. It doesn't matter what the fuck it was, if it acts as a deterrent. That was my point. I'm not saying it was murder and they had the evidence to send him up the river. I was countering one specific stupid claim, that Zimmerman being convicted wouldn't have done anything good. Get it now?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ETA: response to Orfeo.
Not completely accurate. This case could potentially embolden people to enter situations where death might be the outcome. This case is a natural outcome of stand your ground type laws, especially those worded as Florida's is.
So, yes, one can be deterred from/enticed to* commit manslaughter.
Funny, Florida has "attractive nuisance" laws, one must be conscious of creating a dangerous outcome. Concealed carry and stand your ground are the antithesis of this.

*Enticed is not the word I want, but it is the best my addled brain can manage at the moment.

[ 09. August 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

We deal with situations where death might be the outcome every day. Driving motor vehicles is the first that comes to mind.

If what you're saying that you're concerned about people taking risks of death that are not, in your view, necessary, then I agree that unnecessary risks are being taken, but that's fundamentally because of the ready ability to carry weapons. Does stand your ground add to that? Yes, I think it probably does.

But I still don't think a conviction in THIS kind of case is a realistic deterrent, for the same reason that deaths on the road don't appear to cause other drivers to modify their behaviour: no-one believes it will happen to them. Everyone thinks they're the better, more competent driver and everyone thinks they're the better, more competent gunman. Such assertions turn up on every gun control thread we have on the Ship. We have lots of well-trained gun-toting folks. And I recall a survey where 70% of Australian drivers rated themselves as above average.

Over-confidence is a pretty common trait when it comes to these kinds of things, and I really don't think a conviction of Zimmerman would have had other gun-carrying folk thinking 'hey, that could be me'.

I do think a conviction would be a deterrent in situations like that other case where 2 burglars were shot in the back.

[ 10. August 2013, 04:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Over-confidence is a pretty common trait when it comes to these kinds of things, and I really don't think a conviction of Zimmerman would have had other gun-carrying folk thinking 'hey, that could be me'.

Speaking only for myself (the other Shippies who shoot can speak for themselves), it definitely serves as a reminder to me not to let the ownership/carry of a firearm lead me into going to stupid places and doing stupid things, as Zimmerman seems to have done. A firearm, for those who carry one, is a last-ditch tool for saving one's life when all else has failed. In this case, what failed was Zimmerman's common sense - he never should have been in that position in the first place.

["Shippies who shoot" - that sounds like a good thread title. Or name for an odd band.]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Wise words, jbohn.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We deal with situations where death might be the outcome every day. Driving motor vehicles is the first that comes to mind.

Funny you should mention that. Here is a woman who used her car as a weapon to take out a man who threatened her with a gun. As it turns out, the "gun" was an airsoft weapon with the end cut off- intended to look like a real gun, and allegedly intended to be used in a burglary.

She will not face charges, and I for one am content with that. Does anyone want to argue that she should have retreated?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The example does not match the conversation so far. She thought two teens were in imminent danger. Idiot cop's statement as well.

[ 10. August 2013, 18:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

According to the story, she verbally challenged the guy first, something which George Zimmerman failed to do. The guy she challenged was also openly carrying a gun, Trayvon Martin wasn't.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
jbohn: ["Shippies who shoot" - that sounds like a good thread title. Or name for an odd band.]

I think I'll find me a place that's not too close to the stage.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Wise words, jbohn.

There's a first. I'm marking my calendar. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
jbohn: ["Shippies who shoot" - that sounds like a good thread title. Or name for an odd band.]
I think I'll find me a place that's not too close to the stage.

No worries - there'll be at least chicken wire between the stage and the crowd... [Biased]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But I still don't think a conviction in THIS kind of case is a realistic deterrent, for the same reason that deaths on the road don't appear to cause other drivers to modify their behaviour: no-one believes it will happen to them. Everyone thinks they're the better, more competent driver and everyone thinks they're the better, more competent gunman.

In the US the whole culture around driving while intoxicated has changed tremendously in my adult lifetime because the penalties for drunk driving were jacked up so high. Convictions did change people's driving behavior -- my young friends and acquaintances call cabs, take the bus, have designated drivers or whatever, and they plan on how they're getting home before they even go out, something that didn't ever happen when I was young. Between 1982 and 2011, drunk driving deaths in the US fell from over 26,000 a year to under 10,000 (source) while the total population increased from about 230 million to about 308 million.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was also a big part of the change.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It's funny that people are starting to call for harsher penalties in order to act as a deterrent against people trying to prevent crime or defending themselves with deadly force. But start talking about deterring real criminals and half this board goes into "harsher penalties aren't the answer" mode.

How strange.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's funny that people are starting to call for harsher penalties in order to act as a deterrent against people trying to prevent crime or defending themselves with deadly force. But start talking about deterring real criminals and half this board goes into "harsher penalties aren't the answer" mode.

How strange.

Help me out here: what is the difference between someone who kills an unarmed person and a "real" criminal?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Help me out here: what is the difference between someone who kills an unarmed person and a "real" criminal?

The concept of self-defence.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Who is calling for harsher penalties? I would see those laws rewritten so they do not give license to behave irresponsibly.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-wife-selfish-feels-invincible/story?id=20174763

So George Zimmerman's wife has filed for divorce after standing by him throughout the trial and pleading guilty to perjury for lying about their financial situation. He did not appear in court to support her during her own charges.

While I personally think this is a dose of karma for his utter lack of remorse (regardless of whether you think he was right or wrong, a teenager died and that should be a sad thing), I am more interested in any information that may come out after their divorce, if the wife feels she no longer has loyalty to keep his secrets in relation to this case.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Help me out here: what is the difference between someone who kills an unarmed person and a "real" criminal?
The concept of self-defence.

(The recent response bumps this back into attention I guess. )

Walking around unarmed, unlikely to kill anyone.

walking around with gun. The possibility and probability is higher.

Walking around with gun, with thought process and conduct related to confrontation, crime prevention or similar. The possibility increases again.

Driving a car. The possibility of killing someone is higher than walking around armed and unarmed where there is no intent of harm and driving is unaggressive.

Driving a car with the idea of running someone over. The possibility of harm increases to probably higher than the armed crime prevention attitude person. But who does this?

I don't think self defence exists when the contents of the thought process of an armed person are confrontation and crime prevention as a pretend copper.

I admire the possibility of legal argumentation being able to obtain an outcome contrary to what seems to be reasonable truth. Lawyers and law seem to be about this, and they are good at it. That the outcomes offend sensibility sometimes simply shows the skill.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't think self defence exists when the contents of the thought process of an armed person are confrontation and crime prevention as a pretend copper.

You think wrong.

It is, of course, quite possible that Zimmerman was acting foolishly, irresponsibly and dangerously. Let's assume that he was. Assume that he is consciously racist as well, if you like. Are you suggesting that ANY violence directed against him whatever must therefore be justified? That once his thoughts started to turn in the direction "maybe he's a burglar, but if so, I've got a gun" he shouldn't be allowed to resist any assault, with any level of defensive force, no matter how minor?

Of course not. Obviously there is some conceivable sort of attack which would entitle him to resist with some reasonable minimum of force. Therefore the concept of self defence applies.

Whether shooting Martin was a reasonable response within that range of justifiable defence, or whether it was a gross over-reaction, is a different question. That question is raised once we recognise that Zimmerman has a right to defend himself, and ask whether he was acting within or outside that right in these particular circumstances.

Your approach, which is basically "I don't like what he was doing. Someone died. Therefore he must be a criminal" tends strongly towards injustice. It is a refusal to think clearly, beyond one's initial distaste, about what actually happened and why.

quote:
I admire the possibility of legal argumentation being able to obtain an outcome contrary to what seems to be reasonable truth. Lawyers and law seem to be about this, and they are good at it. That the outcomes offend sensibility sometimes simply shows the skill.

There are bad laws, and bad legal decisions, of course, but I think that as a general rule most legal argument is aimed at persuading a judge or jury that one's client's case is both reasonable and true, not that it should succeed in the absence of those qualities. But it's only my fucking job, so what do I know?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So George Zimmerman's wife has filed for divorce after standing by him throughout the trial and pleading guilty to perjury for lying about their financial situation. He did not appear in court to support her during her own charges.

While I personally think this is a dose of karma for his utter lack of remorse (regardless of whether you think he was right or wrong, a teenager died and that should be a sad thing).

On Zimmerman's version of the facts as I understand them Martin jumped out of nowhere, attacked Zimmerman and was about to pull out Zimmerman's gun before he was stopped. On those facts I think a lack of remorse is understandable. It might not be model behaviour, but it's understandable.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: Are you suggesting that ANY violence directed against him whatever must therefore be justified?

Person X cannot claim self-defence ≠ the violence against person X is justified.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Eliab: Are you suggesting that ANY violence directed against him whatever must therefore be justified?
Person X cannot claim self-defence ≠ the violence against person X is justified.

Well if you want a legal category of unjustified criminal violence that nonetheless cannot lawfully be resisted, I suppose not. But that would be crazy.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: Well if you want a legal category of unjustified criminal violence that nonetheless cannot lawfully be resisted, I suppose not. But that would be crazy.

Actually, things like that exist in many legislations. If I don't do everything reasonable to avoid a situation in which another person becomes violent, I cannot claim self-defence, even if the violence of the other person isn't justified.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eliab: Well if you want a legal category of unjustified criminal violence that nonetheless cannot lawfully be resisted, I suppose not. But that would be crazy.

Actually, legal categories like this exist in many countries. Coming back to my example of Dutch law, claiming self-defence is possible only when you used violence as a last resort. It says nothing about whether the violence of the other person is justified or not.

You seem to think in terms of "Either the attacker is justified, or the person who used violence to defend himself is". I can think of many situations where both are guilty.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Zimmerman clearly ignored the instruction to wait for the police. He could have avoided the entire problem,

I am pretty sure that "Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Go looking fro trouble".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

We've been over the question of whether it was an instruction quite a few times. It's not clear it's an instruction. It certainly isn't a legal requirement.

And frankly, in certain OTHER kinds of cases, if someone tries to run a "you did something foolish so you had it coming" kind of argument, there's a total outcry.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, this is true for either position.
Laying out the basics of this tragedy.
Carrying a gun will cause many people to create/become involved in situations that would otherwise not occur.
Stand your ground laws, especially those written as Florida's is, will cause some to create/become involved in unnecessary situations leading to harm or death.
People will feel threatened when stalked by another person, especially Black people in the American South.
Whether any if these were true for this situation, we do not know. However, to dismiss them is ridiculous.
The problem with the discussions here are facts. There are very few known.
Zimmerman's convo with the police. Recorded; occurrence and dialogue.
Martin's convo with girlfriend. Occurrence confirmed, dialogue not recorded.
Zimmerman shot Martin. Admitted.
I think these are all the facts.
All else is testimony and supposition.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: And frankly, in certain OTHER kinds of cases, if someone tries to run a "you did something foolish so you had it coming" kind of argument, there's a total outcry.

I'm not making this argument.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, this is true for either position.
Laying out the basics of this tragedy.
Carrying a gun will cause many people to create/become involved in situations that would otherwise not occur.
Stand your ground laws, especially those written as Florida's is, will cause some to create/become involved in unnecessary situations leading to harm or death.
People will feel threatened when stalked by another person, especially Black people in the American South.
Whether any if these were true for this situation, we do not know. However, to dismiss them is ridiculous.
The problem with the discussions here are facts. There are very few known.
Zimmerman's convo with the police. Recorded; occurrence and dialogue.
Martin's convo with girlfriend. Occurrence confirmed, dialogue not recorded.
Zimmerman shot Martin. Admitted.
I think these are all the facts.
All else is testimony and supposition.

There are a few more facts. Zimmermann had injuries to his face and the back of his head. These require explaining. When Martin was shot, the barrel of the gun was touching his shirt, but his skin was several inches away. This indicates he was leaning forward.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Just as I did not rejoice at the death of Margaret Thatcher, I shan't be gloating about Zimmrman's matrimonial problems.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Moo,

The how and the why of those are not known as fact to us. My statement was addressing we know little. Most of what we have said reflects what we have chosen to believe.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Moo,

The how and the why of those are not known as fact to us. My statement was addressing we know little. Most of what we have said reflects what we have chosen to believe.

And what the jury, having heard all the evidence, inevitably found.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Strictly speaking, the jury decided the evidence did not bear the charge of second-degree murder.
Belief or disbelief is not part of the verdict.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Coming back to my example of Dutch law, claiming self-defence is possible only when you used violence as a last resort.

A condition which is consistent with what I am arguing for. Although I would want to qualify what is meant by "as a last resort" so that it doesn't mean one cannot legally intervene to protect others from violence just because passing by on the other side was a practical possibility.

quote:
You seem to think in terms of "Either the attacker is justified, or the person who used violence to defend himself is".

No, I don't think that.

quote:
I can think of many situations where both are guilty.

Certainly. Many situations.

But that's not what no prophet said, and therefore not what I'm arguing against.

He said that the concept of self defence should not apply* to someone who is trying to prevent a crime who is not a policeman. That is to say, he wants to prevent people who try to stop criminals, and are attacked when doing so, even being able to claim self defence. Forget about analysing the magnitude of the threat they face, or the reasonableness of the level of force used in response, or any other factor which a good self defence law takes into account - no prophet thinks it fair that as soon as you stand up to protect your neighbours from the risk of crime, you become criminally responsible for any harm you might cause if someone attacks you.

Which is monstrous.

I strongly agree that there are situations where a plea of self defence should fail** - I strongly disagree that a motive of crime prevention should prevent someone from even raising the issue of self defence. Which is what no prophet appears to want.

(*he actually said self defence doesn't "exist" in such circumstances. Since it manifestly does exist in Zimmerman's jurisdiction, I am interpreting his comments as prescriptive rather than descriptive)

(**if, for instance, the jury had not believed Zimmerman's story at all, or if, believing it, they still didn't think he was justified in using his gun, they would presumably have rejected his self defence argument. They didn't do that, of course. There might be an argument that on these particular facts they should have. But once they accepted that Zimmerman had been attacked, and that the threat was sufficiently serious for him to use potentially deadly force to resist it, I don't see how they could justly have convicted him of murder.)

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I thought for sure that the newest posts on this thread would discuss the fact that Zimmerman's wife has filed for divorce. How disappointed I am ...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That is what generated the bump. There is not much to discuss there. She has said it is about feeling neglected, nothing about the trial.
People seem more content to rehash what was already mentioned.
I admit I participated in the rehash out of annoyance. Not a good thing.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Moo,

The how and the why of those are not known as fact to us. My statement was addressing we know little. Most of what we have said reflects what we have chosen to believe.

I'm not sure we have the same definition of 'fact'. I think Zimmermann's facial and head injuries are facts because I have seen photographs. (I do not believe that these photographs were fakes.)

Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot. I have known one medical examiner in my life. He had two graduate degrees, one in medicine and one in law. He also had additional training in determining the cause of injuries. The medical examiner who testified at Zimmermann's trial appeared to be equally competent.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot.

Oftentimes yes.

quote:
BOSTON -- The state is still reeling a year after a scandal at a drug lab threw the legal system into turmoil: More than 330 prison inmates have been released from custody and at least 1,100 cases have been dismissed or not prosecuted because of tainted evidence and other fallout from the facility's closure.

Annie Dookhan stands accused of faking test results, tampering with evidence and routinely ignoring testing protocols.

This is far from the only example of this sort of thing happening. (The FBI crime lab had a similar scandal a few years back.) Prosecutors will often preferentially choose experts who "get results" (i.e. find evidence leading to a conviction) and a lot of crime labs are paid on a per conviction, not per test, basis. The American forensic evidence system is in dire need of reform.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And O.J. Simpson as well. The evidence was poorly handled by a professional technician. Said technician was not the best equipped for field work, but it was his turn in the rotation. Whether this would have resulted in a conviction is supposition, of course.

But I was not debating Zimmerman's injuries or the forensic analysis of the gunshot, just stating the conclusions drawn from those are not facts.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with the discussions here are facts. There are very few known.
Zimmerman's convo with the police. Recorded; occurrence and dialogue.
Martin's convo with girlfriend. Occurrence confirmed, dialogue not recorded.
Zimmerman shot Martin. Admitted.
I think these are all the facts.
All else is testimony and supposition.

I really don't understand your definition of 'fact'. Why are the recordings facts, but Zimmermann's injuries are not? I am not saying anything about how he suffered those injuries; I am simply saying that they existed.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Never said Zimmerman's injuries were not facts. I did miss them in my original list, yes.
And I do owe you an apology, I did read more into what you posted than what was there. I apologise for that.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

The sad saga continues.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The sad saga continues.

Sad, but unsurprising. Zimmerman's history includes:

An ex-fiancée who was able to get the courts to issue a restraining order against him
A physical altercation with a police officer
Chasing and killing an unarmed teenager

This escalating trajectory is not something that's likely to end well, especially given that the main lesson Zimmerman's been able to take away from these past incidents is that no real consequences will ever be attached to his actions.

Well, no consequences for him, at least.

[ 09. September 2013, 21:08: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Oh, well, but, he has incurred substantial legal bills. Let's not forget that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, well, but, he has incurred substantial legal bills. Let's not forget that.

Has he? I thought Florida's spectacularly ill-written self defense statutes required the state to compensate the legal fees of anyone who successfully mounted a self-defense claim when prosecuted. I recall reading that somewhere, but can't remember for certain.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And I was being ironic, given the perjury charges over the couple's collecting substantial sums through a website for Z's defense, and then requesting -- was it legal aid or lowered bail? -- because they allegedly had no money.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Lowered bail, as I recall.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, well, but, he has incurred substantial legal bills. Let's not forget that.
Has he? I thought Florida's spectacularly ill-written self defense statutes required the state to compensate the legal fees of anyone who successfully mounted a self-defense claim when prosecuted. I recall reading that somewhere, but can't remember for certain.

According to this NBC article "Zimmerman's request [for expert witness and other expenses] would be based on a Florida law that says a defendant who's acquitted isn't liable for costs associated with his or her case. It must be approved by a judge or a clerk." But it doesn't appear to cover attorney's fees, nor does it have anything to do with self-defense claims.

The statute referred to in this Orlando Sentinel article says

quote:
939.06 Acquitted defendant not liable for costs.—
(1) A defendant in a criminal prosecution who is acquitted or discharged is not liable for any costs or fees of the court or any ministerial office, or for any charge of subsistence while detained in custody. If the defendant has paid any taxable costs, or fees required under s. 27.52(1)(b), in the case, the clerk or judge shall give him or her a certificate of the payment of such costs, with the items thereof, which, when audited and approved according to law, shall be refunded to the defendant.

(2) To receive a refund under this section, a defendant must submit a request for the refund to the Justice Administrative Commission on a form and in a manner prescribed by the commission. The defendant must attach to the form an order from the court demonstrating the defendant’s right to the refund and the amount of the refund.

IANAL, but this sounds a lot more likely to cover reimbursement for fees paid directly to the court system, rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars in expert witness expenses.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

More news on America's model citizen.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-custody-domestic-incident-involving-gun/story?id=20203329

quote:
George Zimmerman was released without charges today after his wife called 911 to say Zimmerman punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened to shoot him and his wife.

Zimmerman, acquitted in July of the murder of teenager Trayvon Martin, claimed that he was acting in a "defensive manner" during the incident, according to police, who later added that they never found a gun on Zimmerman.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman was handcuffed and questioned by police in Lake Mary, Fla., according to Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot.
Oftentimes yes.

So we can't trust eyewitnesses and we can't trust expert witnesses. One is left wondering exactly whom we can trust when it comes to deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Who is "we," Marvin?

In the usual run of things, the only people who need to trust, or distrust, any testimony are those on the jury.

Decades after the fact, plenty of people still believe that O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Had he been convicted, plenty of people would no doubt be convinced he was, nevertheless, innocent.

In the justice system we actually have, though, the only opinions that matter belong to the folks in the jury box -- whose access to various information about any given case is restricted (or supposed to be), at least as compared to what the general public has access to.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Who is "we," Marvin?

On this thread, we have seen eyewitness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. We have now seen expert witness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. I'm left wondering exactly what sorts of evidence in favour of Zimmerman's version of events the dismissers would accept.

I also can't escape the thought that if the evidence from the eyewitness and expert witness was disagreeing with Zimmerman's version of events, we'd be hearing a whole lot less about how notoriously unreliable those forms of evidence are. But maybe that's just me being cynical...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier you said that you think eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Do you think expert testimony is also unreliable? It was an expert witness, a medical examiner who testified that Martin's shirt was not next to his skin when he was shot.
Oftentimes yes.
So we can't trust eyewitnesses and we can't trust expert witnesses. One is left wondering exactly whom we can trust when it comes to deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime.

Jurors do not have to decide if a person is innocent. They have to decide if the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The jurors in Zimmerman's murder trial were obviously not satisfied that the prosecution had proven its case to that standard.

If we don't believe either expert or eye-witnes evidence, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has not proven its case as required, and the accused must be acquitted.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Who is "we," Marvin?
On this thread, we have seen eyewitness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. We have now seen expert witness testimony that supports Zimmerman's version of events dismissed. I'm left wondering exactly what sorts of evidence in favour of Zimmerman's version of events the dismissers would accept.

I also can't escape the thought that if the evidence from the eyewitness and expert witness was disagreeing with Zimmerman's version of events, we'd be hearing a whole lot less about how notoriously unreliable those forms of evidence are. But maybe that's just me being cynical...

Well, call me a cynic as well then.

What mystifies me is that evidence is being called into question not because it is inconsistent with some other piece of evidence, but because it is inconsistent with a bunch of presuppositions about the correct outcome.

Because here's the thing about dismissing the evidence in this case: it doesn't leave you with contrary evidence that supports Zimmerman's guilt. It just leaves you with even larger, more gaping evidentiary holes than we already have.

It seems to me that there's a desire to reduce the 'evidence' down to what we had at the very beginning: a kid who bought candy was shot dead by somebody. Which is a very neat, tidy story for the 24-hour news cycle that can't be arsed to investigate further.

But as I've said before, the whole point of that narrative is that reduces the shooter to a cypher. And it's the shooter who is on trial. It's HIS side of the story that needs to be investigated further, much more than the dead kid.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But as I've said before, the whole point of that narrative is that reduces the shooter to a cypher. And it's the shooter who is on trial. It's HIS side of the story that needs to be investigated further, much more than the dead kid.

Well regardless of the outcome of the Martin case, we know the shooter is a scumbag with a history of domestic violence and some serious family problems, including allegations of molesting one of his cousins and apparently threatening his wife - or not threatening, the wife is a convicted liar too after all.

Both sides are guilty of manipulating this story to serve their own political views. As more comes out about Zimmerman unfortunately those who made him out to be some sort of American hero fighting the scourge of teenage gangsters are being made to look like fools by George himself. I make no claims that Martin is an angel, but he's dead and has no chance to redeem his image. Zimmerman does and look how good of a job he's doing.

At least Casey Anthony had the good sense to keep her head down.

[ 10. September 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Marvin and orfeo,

Testimony, either eyewitness or expert, should always be questioned.
Human memory does not work as most think. It does not reliably record what happens and actually can change what it thinks it recorded.
Expert testimony is an interpretation of what happened. The quality of this testimony is highly variable.
Both of these statements are demonstrable.
As to the charge some are viewing the case through presupposition; I think you are correct. But not simply for one viewpoint.
But I am not sure your point. There is justifiable outrage aplenty regardless of the acquittal.

[ 10. September 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I do apologize, since this material probably does not belong here, but lilBuddha's reference above to "outrage" happened to coincide with a discussion of the linked news story.

I guess I really have to start researching my emigration options. The gummint must be taking crazy pills.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Whoops -- worked when I first clicked on it, doesn't now.

Let's try this link instead.

And just in case that's a dud, too, it appears that Iowa, since 2011, has allowed blind people to purchase firearms and carry them in public.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Here's Zimmerman's lawyer's interesting commment on the domestic dispute:

"He acted appropriately. He never took the weapon out. The only thing he really did, which is what he told the police, was on the outside of his shirt, he made sure the gun wasn’t moving anywhere and didn’t do anything because Mr. Dean [Zimmerman's father-in-law] was sort of coming at him..."

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's Zimmerman's lawyer's interesting commment on the domestic dispute:

"He acted appropriately. He never took the weapon out. The only thing he really did, which is what he told the police, was on the outside of his shirt, he made sure the gun wasn’t moving anywhere and didn’t do anything because Mr. Dean [Zimmerman's father-in-law] was sort of coming at him..."

Is this the lawyer who just dropped him as his client for any non-Martin business and claimed Zim owes him money?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-quits/t/story?id=20212533

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Testimony, either eyewitness or expert, should always be questioned.

Sure.

And that's the very essence of our legal system.

But my point is that the purpose of the questioning is to look for inconsistencies and contradictions that might lead one to prefer one piece of evidence to another. It is not the purpose to discard evidence completely because of some philosophical point about how inherently unreliable ALL evidence is. If you go down that route, what are you left with? You're left with no methodology whatsoever for assessing guilt or responsibility.

I dealt with plenty of evidence in my 2 years working for a tribunal. I know none of it's perfect. But I also know it's not all of equal value. One is not looking for perfect evidence, one is looking for the best evidence. And the best pieces of evidence are the ones that are congruent with other independent sources.

The whole reason I believe Zimmerman's story about being on the ground when he shot Martin is that there are other pieces of evidence that are congruent with it. Sure, I suppose it's vaguely possible that not only is he lying but that all the corroborating evidence is mistaken, but Occam's Razor tells me the more likely explanation is that those independents of evidence match up with each other because they're true.

The legal rightness or wrongness of Zimmerman's actions is a matter of law and the law is certainly up for debate (stand your ground laws, readily available gun permits etc etc), but I cannot understand casting doubts on the facts of the last minute or so of Martin's life, when there isn't any evidence that I've seen that contradicts Zimmerman's version and several pieces of evidence that support it. Whether it's Zimmerman's physical injuries, gunshot analysis or neighbour's testimony, it's consistent with Zimmerman's account. For Zimmerman's account to be wrong, you have to postulate that multiple other types of evidence are all wrong as well.

If you want to show that the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground is wrong, give me a piece of physical evidence showing he was on top. If you want to show that the gunshot analysis of Martin's shirt hanging down (because he was facing downwards but off the ground) was wrong, give me an eyewitness who saw Martin on his back. Don't give me philosophical commentary about the inherent unreliability of evidence. Give me contrary evidence such that one of the two must be wrong. Then there's an evidentiary question to be resolved to decide which is more reliable.

[ 11. September 2013, 06:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

My point was simply that testimonies are not fact. Whether it is reasonable to believe the testimonies in this case is a separate issue.
I suppose we could review what we know about that, but quite frankly, I am tired of this and the discussion makes me ill.
I should have stayed away as it is merely re-hashing, but I let my irritation at the misuse of the word "fact" and the misrepresentations I think this confers on the situation draw me in.
I think I shall take my own council and bow out here. Fight on, if you will, my brothers and sisters; I'm out.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

PS: People keep saying Trayvon was "no angel" like he was some kind of thug. (And why should he be held to the impossibly high standard of angel-hood anyway?) Smoked some marijuana? Lots of people, including me, have. Smoking grass most certainly doesn't put one in the thug category. Had a few disciplinary problems at school? Well, even type B introverted nerdly personality me got into trouble a few times. Trayvon sounds like he was a fairly normal teenager.

Zimmerman on the other hand . . . Police Chief: "Zimmerman's Another 'Sandy Hook' Waiting to Happen"

[ 13. September 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
PS: People keep saying Trayvon was "no angel" like he was some kind of thug. (And why should he be held to the impossibly high standard of angel-hood anyway?) Smoked some marijuana? Lots of people, including me, have. Smoking grass most certainly doesn't put one in the thug category. Had a few disciplinary problems at school? Well, even type B introverted nerdly personality me got into trouble a few times. Trayvon sounds like he was a fairly normal teenager.

Well, that's the standard that's typically applied when a white American kills a black American. Anything short of angelhood on the part of the deceased is taken as proof that he had it coming (and that society is probably better off without him).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:

quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.

Story here.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:

quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.

Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:

quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?

Indeed it is. If you read the link, the (now fired) coroner is claiming the prosecution was hand-picked to intentionally blow the case by ignoring key pieces of evidence & constraining his (the coroner's) testimony. So now this ever-shifting case becomes, (much like Mrs. Zimmerman's accusations): is this a disgruntled employee seeking revenge, or a heroic whistleblower who was fired in retaliation for now following script?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?

The coroner can only answer the questions the prosecution or defense attorneys ask him -- he doesn't get to freestyle.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So now this ever-shifting case becomes, (much like Mrs. Zimmerman's accusations): is this a disgruntled employee seeking revenge, or a heroic whistleblower who was fired in retaliation for now following script?

Here's an account of Bao's firing from yesterday, before he made his accusations.

quote:
Shiping Bao, the medical examiner for the Trayvon Martin case, has been fired.

Bao was let go from the Volusia County Medical Examiner's Office last week, officials said Wednesday.

Authorities provided a copy of his termination letter, but did not specify a reason.

The letter says Bao was given a choice to resign.

He didn't. So, he was terminated Friday.

I'm not sure this spreads any particular light, except to note that he was apparently offered the graceful exit of a resignation but turned it down and was fired.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Now that would be evidence worth considering, if true. But were is the evidence for this assertion and how on earth was it missed at the trial?
The coroner can only answer the questions the prosecution or defense attorneys ask him -- he doesn't get to freestyle.

But, if we're talking about the amse cornoner, wasn't he examined by the prosecution about Martin's cause of death? How - no matter what the questions he was asked - can he have omitted to say that he thought the wound was from the back? Wasn't the forensic medical report open to scrutiny in the trial at all?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The prosecutor would have asked him a general question: What did you find when you examined the deceased? The answer would have been along the lines: I found a gunshot wound (saying where) which penetrated the chest and damaged the (left lung/heart/what damage was done). A prosecutor could have asked: When you examined the deceased, did you find a gunshot wound to his chest? only had it been agreed that such shortening of the evidence could occur. Even then, the way is wide open for the doctor to reply: No, I found a gunshot wound to his back.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.

I could believe 'not interested in getting a conviction'. Plenty of advocates do trials without much personal motivation to get a particular result, and a prosecutor who had more sympathy for the defendant than the deceased might well have been going through the motions.

What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense. That's exactly the sort of thing you can't stop witnesses saying. Every advocate knows that there's a risk of any witness blurting out something unhelpful - that's the risk of trial - but when you know that the witness has something unhelpful that he's itching to share, you bloody well don't call him.

I'd believe that prosecution negligence contributed to the acquittal. I don't believe that there was some conspiracy to get Zimmerman off which included calling an expert witness whom the prosecution knew would disprove the defence, and hoping that he would refrain from saying that very obvious thing.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The prosecutor "would have"? Should have, maybe. If the Prosecution wasn't interested in getting a conviction, they would not have.

I cannot speak for what happens in the US - or Florida - but here it is invariable practice for the prosecution to call the doctor who carried out the autopsy.

And from Eliab:

I could believe 'not interested in getting a conviction'. Plenty of advocates do trials without much personal motivation to get a particular result, and a prosecutor who had more sympathy for the defendant than the deceased might well have been going through the motions.

History here shows that prosecutors who do trials with "personal motivation" - be that a burning belief in the guilt of the accused, or in playing to the press for good headlines, find themselves eased out of prosecuting work. A good prosecutor follows proper guidelines, maintains detachment, and presents the case calmly and ethically. Perhaps not having elected prosecutors makes a difference.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense.

This - very much this. You'd have to be truly desperate to believe at all costs that there was a determined prosecution effort/conspiracy not to get Z convicted before you'd call this hypothesis in as support, ISTM. As Eliab says, it makes no sense.

[ 15. September 2013, 09:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't believe that there was some conspiracy to get Zimmerman off which included calling an expert witness whom the prosecution knew would disprove the defence, and hoping that he would refrain from saying that very obvious thing.

I don't know how often it happens in the real world...but that's exactly the way it plays out in many episodes of just about ever crime drama I've ever seen.

The American legal system has many false convictions--due to mistakes, or poor legal representation, or to pressure convict someone and close a case, or prejudice, or corruption. Many wrongly-convicted people have been executed.

I don't know what did or didn't happen in this case, But the American legal system is massively broken. Now, at least, there are groups like the Innocence Project to help out.
[Votive]

Code fix -Gwai

[ 15. September 2013, 11:53: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Sorry for the code mess.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What is implausible is that a prosecutor who actively wanted Zimmerman acquitted would call a witness whom he knew could torpedo Zimmerman's defence with the simple and obvious observation that Martin was shot in the back, in the hope that this would never get mentioned in court. That just doesn't happen. It makes no sense.
This - very much this. You'd have to be truly desperate to believe at all costs that there was a determined prosecution effort/conspiracy not to get Z convicted before you'd call this hypothesis in as support, ISTM. As Eliab says, it makes no sense.

While I have no special knowledge of this case, what reading I've done suggests that the initial investigation into Martin's death was (A) slow, and (B) not especially thorough. The people doing the investigating knew Zimmerman; they'd been getting regular calls from him for years; they may even have regarded him almost as "one of their own." I believe that Zimmerman was not even arrested at first (I may be mistaken on this point).

Protests and Martin's parents demands are what prompted further -- and later -- investigation.

Testimony depends on the results of investigation. This need not have been a "conspiracy to get Zimmerman off." (FWIW, I have a hard time swallowing this too, though I do think it's within the realm of possibility.)

It might, however, have been the result of a "conspiracy" to avoid public scandal splashing all over the local police & local DA's office.

The police, the prosecutor, and the ME are all on the same "team," prosecutorally speaking The ME's testimony, if based in fact (and not, as has been suggested, a fabrication by a disgruntled ex-employee) would have implicated the police (for flawed / incomplete / sloppy investigation) and/or the prosecutorial staff for pursuing a case with so little or such lousy evidence. If the ME actually possessed exculpatory evidence, and these others on the team knew it, he'd have been under colossal pressure to keep it to himself, and he'd have been "coached" by the DA handling the case to avoid such revelations -- less with the goal of acquitting Zimmerman than with the goal of protecting members of the local prosecutorial team.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The people doing the investigating knew Zimmerman; they'd been getting regular calls from him for years; they may even have regarded him almost as "one of their own."

I think this could really cut both ways. When I have worked in jobs dealing with the general public, our regulars (people we saw often enough to recognize them) ran about 75%/25% dreaded/loved. Oftentimes someone who hangs around a lot is just a pain in the ass. Especially if they are a wannabe and think they could do your job better than you without any training. Zimmerman has been portrayed as a wannabe cop in the press- I don't know if it's true.

Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I think this could really cut both ways . . . Zimmerman has been portrayed as a wannabe cop in the press- I don't know if it's true.

Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".

Of course, you're right. Frequent callers / visitors seem more likely to get themselves regarded as pains in the tookus. The quality -- or lack thereof -- of the original investigation is what makes me suspect they regard him as "one of theirs."

I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.

AIUI Zimmermann didn't 'wash out'. One of his instructors testified at the trial and spoke highly of him.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Probably the police's feelings about him depend on how many of Zimmerman's calls were actually helpful to them, versus "Oh God it's that crank calling about the busted streetlight again, why can't he get a hobby".
Of course, you're right. Frequent callers / visitors seem more likely to get themselves regarded as pains in the tookus. The quality -- or lack thereof -- of the original investigation is what makes me suspect they regard him as "one of theirs."

I think (but wouldn't want to swear to this) the media reported Zimmerman as a "wannabe" largely on the basis of his having taken criminal justice courses somewhere, but ultimately "washing out" in some fashion.

Somewhere upthread I posted a link to a list of all the calls Zimmermann made to the police over a period of seven years. The total was less than fifty. Many of them reported such things as potholes and open garage doors at houses where the residents were known to be away. There are far more calls about suspicious circumstances than suspicious characters.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Somewhere upthread I posted a link to a list of all the calls Zimmermann made to the police over a period of seven years. The total was less than fifty. Many of them reported such things as potholes and open garage doors at houses where the residents were known to be away. There are far more calls about suspicious circumstances than suspicious characters.

Moo

As a raw number, 50 calls in 7 years doesn't actually mean much, and police check out suspicious circumstances along with suspicious characters. Sounds like he called police very roughly every other month (actually a little more often than that) on average

Comparing Z's call frequency with my own: I live in the downtown area of a small city, at the edge of a fairly poor area with many transient residents. My parking lot is shared with an office building where there are counseling services for a substantial population of homeless people. While the homeless people include ex-cons, sex offenders, substance abusers, people with mental illness, etc., and they often create nuisances with noise, litter, clouds of cigarette smoke, and other minor havoc -- I can remember calling the police only once, and I've lived in this general area (though not in this specific residence) for some 25 years.

I dunno; on reflection, 50 calls in 7 years seems like a lot.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
New twist. The coroner who examined Trayvon Martin, who was recently fired from his job at the ME office, is speaking out. In particular:

quote:
According to the former assistant coroner, the results of Martin's autopsy clearly showed that, despite Zimmerman's statements regarding their altercation, there was no feasible way for Martin to have been on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired, because the bullet entered Martin's back.
Story here.

The story has been updated to reflect that the site now says the part about Martin supposedly being shot in the back "cannot be verified at this time". Interesting.

I also note the overt bias of the source, which makes me wonder about the quality of the information...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I also note the overt bias of the source, which makes me wonder about the quality of the information...

As opposed to, say, Zimmerman's testimony?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Comparing Z's call frequency with my own: I live in the downtown area of a small city, at the edge of a fairly poor area with many transient residents. My parking lot is shared with an office building where there are counseling services for a substantial population of homeless people. While the homeless people include ex-cons, sex offenders, substance abusers, people with mental illness, etc., and they often create nuisances with noise, litter, clouds of cigarette smoke, and other minor havoc -- I can remember calling the police only once, and I've lived in this general area (though not in this specific residence) for some 25 years.

I dunno; on reflection, 50 calls in 7 years seems like a lot.

Not if you are a member of the Neighborhood Watch.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Sorry; I think my semi-tough neighborhood with its disturbed and disturbing throngs of daily visiting malefactors is probably equivalent to being on a neighborhood watch. There were 2-3 times I considered calling the police (over and above the call I made when my car window got shot out). That's still only 4 calls in 25 years, as opposed to 50 in 7. But then, I try to get to know the denizens of my neighborhood, as they're also my constituents. So I have a pretty good idea of what's up when something odd occurs.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Eliab's right. It's one thing to suggest an investigation was slow or flawed or otherwise incompetent. It's quite another to suggest that the investigation successfully uncovered a gunshot wound in the back, but then covered it up even more successfully. The proposal makes no sense when you consider the steps required.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

We don't know how many other residents were involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and how many calls they made, so we can`t really make a judgment on the number of calls George Zimmermann made.

And yet, that number of calls seems a lot to me as well, even remembering the bad old days when my neighbourhood was a ``stroll``.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I thought it was made clear Zimmerman was NOT on the official neighborhood watch?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought it was made clear Zimmerman was NOT on the official neighborhood watch?

I thought he was, but that he wasn't 'on duty' on the night in question.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
We don't know how many other residents were involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and how many calls they made, so we can`t really make a judgment on the number of calls George Zimmermann made.

More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police.

Moo

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police. ...

I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
More than half of the calls he made dealt with such matters as a garage door left open when he knew the residents weren't home. If my garage door is open when I'm not home, I would be glad to have someone tell the police. ...
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?

Search the home for contraband while the owners are out and they have free access?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I also note the overt bias of the source, which makes me wonder about the quality of the information...
As opposed to, say, Zimmerman's testimony?

Which is of course biased - one would expect that, wouldn't they?

With "news" sources, though, I generally like them to at least make some pretense of neutrality. I generally don't trust anything without multiple sources, and if the sources include Faux News, WND, HuffPo, etc. (blatant propaganda from both sides of the aisle, thanks) I trust even less...

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?

Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I still don`t get it. Reporting an open garage door to police leads to the police doing ... what? Do they come by and close the door? Call the homeowner to come close the door? Advise the homeowner's insurance company?
Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.

Yes, that is why I would want it reported.

Moo

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eliab's right. It's one thing to suggest an investigation was slow or flawed or otherwise incompetent. It's quite another to suggest that the investigation successfully uncovered a gunshot wound in the back, but then covered it up even more successfully. The proposal makes no sense when you consider the steps required.

This, I think, is pretty unarguable. And yet...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:

Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?

Thanks!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Yes
Yes
And not the level of corruption required to rig a trial of this magnitude

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:

Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated?

The traditional argument against this sort of thing happening is that it would require the silence of too many people. Someone would eventually come forward with the true story, exposing the corruption. Of course, what we have now is someone allegedly coming forward with what he claims is "the true story" and the general reaction is to dismiss the allegations out of hand.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:

Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated?
The traditional argument against this sort of thing happening is that it would require the silence of too many people. Someone would eventually come forward with the true story, exposing the corruption. Of course, what we have now is someone allegedly coming forward with what he claims is "the true story" and the general reaction is to dismiss the allegations out of hand.

And I don't even know that it has to be all that deliberate, organized or conscious a decision. I could see where the prosecutor makes some assumptions early on in the case, which, while something you want to avoid, I would imagine inevitably happens fairly often just based on your previous professional experiences. That starts to color the way you look at the evidence just as it does for all of us when we have a hunch about something (e.g. the way I instinctively believe internet stories that align with my beliefs, but rush to snopes with those that don't). Then you throw in the court system itself which is set up in a adverserial competitive model. I can see this happening. Because we're not talking about destroying evidence or intimidating a witness so much as just not asking the right questions. That would be pretty easy to rationalize if your gut is telling you Zimmermann is innocent.

Of course, the "disgruntled employee" theory plays well too.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The California Innocence Project has an article on prosecutorial misconduct. It steps through the many ways it can occur. At the bottom of the page, there's a list of links to more detailed info.

I know the usual argument about someone telling on a conspiracy, that it would always happen. And I know that people do spill secrets about all sorts of things. (Especially since the Internet!)

OTOH, military and federal/national government secrets are often kept for a long time. Long-lost historical secrets come to light (i.e., they were *secret* for a long time.). Legends turn out to have more (or less) truth to them., previously hidden. Family secrets can be kept 'til death, or for generations. Etc.

I don't know the truth of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. But the whole process has only taken a couple of years, and that's not a long time to keep a secret.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The trouble with the argument that the prosecution was hiding evidence (either deliberately or by negligence) is that I gather that the person carrying out the autopsy was called to give evidence. If he were, then to the standard question "What did you find when you examined the deceased" he would have answered that he had found a gunshot wound to the deceased's back. And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

The other thing is that all this happened in open court, in front (I assume) of a lot of media. If someone wants to allege that prosecution was botched deliberately or through gross negligence by failing to ask some fairly basic questions -- a very serious allegation -- they are welcome to try to back it up through news reports or, failing that, the transcripts of the evidence heard.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:

Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?

Thanks!

Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... Here, at least, they would generally a) check for intruders, b) close the door/secure the house, and c) file a report, which could be used by the homeowner in the event something was discovered missing later.

So someone reporting your garage door open means a) the police enter and search your home and c) your insurance company can say you left the door open and reject your claim, but at least b) the police close the door when they're done. Got it.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Again, I'm dubious about any conspiracy to get Z off (though it's possible there might have been an effort to avoid revealing details of a sloppy initial investigation). That said, though, there are many ways of asking questions.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The trouble with the argument that the prosecution was hiding evidence (either deliberately or by negligence) is that I gather that the person carrying out the autopsy was called to give evidence. If he were, then to the standard question "What did you find when you examined the deceased" he would have answered that he had found a gunshot wound to the deceased's back. And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.

First, there aren't necessarily any "standard" questions. The prosecution doesn't always (and isn't required to) phrase questions in this open-ended format: ". . . and what did you find?"

The prosecution can ask a series of much more specific questions like, "In your opinion, Doctor, at what range was the victim shot?" and (after s/he answers) "And how do you know this?"

Q&A sessions like this can dance all around larger issues of whether we're discussing an entrance or exit wound, or where said wound appears on the body without (at least in my experience) others noticing that a larger question has been left unanswered.

I'm not claiming this happened in the Z trial (I didn't watch it, so I don't know). But it certainly could have. Witnesses are required to answer the questions put to them, but as Mousethief pointed out above, they can't offer testimony that hasn't been prompted by a question.

I frequently have to ask my clients about their activities, in an effort to help them understand whatever mess they're currently in, after one of my staff has (on the basis of her or his preconceived notions) cocked-up a similar previous interview. Clients, trying to avoid "getting in trouble" will offer false or mistaken or partial info; staff fill in the blanks with assumptions of their own, and leap to erroneous conclusions.

This technique is routinely employed in examining witnesses.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question for the folks who think it's impossible that the authorities more or less rigged the trial:

Is the problem simply that you think it would be too complicated? Or that no one would possibly bother? Or that (American) authorities couldn't be that corrupt? Or...?

Thanks!
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.

Then firing him for giving testimony that helped the defense when that's what you wanted to do in the first place

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
. . . And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.

Whoops -- neglected to include the fact that a shirt can hang away from the body from the back or side as well as from the front; it all depends on whether the individual is leaning forward, sideways, or backward.

There's an example of filling in a blank with information that isn't actually there: "Oh, the shirt was away from the body? Then the victim must have been leaning forward." That's the most likely explanation for a shirt being away from the body, but it's far from the only one. In a 2-party struggle, Party A might grab Party B's shirt and pull on it as Party B is falling backward, fire a handgun into Party B's body, and achieve essentially the same result as if Party B were leaning over Party A.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.

You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Then firing him for giving testimony that helped the defense when that's what you wanted to do in the first place

Is that why they fired him? Where did you read this?

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Q&A sessions like this can dance all around larger issues of whether we're discussing an entrance or exit wound, or where said wound appears on the body without (at least in my experience) others noticing that a larger question has been left unanswered.

I'm not claiming this happened in the Z trial (I didn't watch it, so I don't know). But it certainly could have. Witnesses are required to answer the questions put to them, but as Mousethief pointed out above, they can't offer testimony that hasn't been prompted by a question.

True, for very broad senses of "prompted".

E.g.,

Q. Officer, on that night, you didn't do X did you?

A. No, I didn't have to do X, because I had already done A, B, and C... or No, I didn't do X, because I thought it would be inappropriate for A, B, and C reasons.

Q. Dr. X, where was wound you just described?

A. Well, just to be clear, there were two wounds, an entrance wound at point P and an exit wound at point Q, etc.

Or:

A. Just to be clear, do you mean the entrance wound or the exit wound?

Or:

A. Yeah the exit wound, it was at point P.

You get the idea. Absent some kind of prior agreement to avoid certain topics, there's no way of preventing a witness from giving certain answers just by not asking certain questions.

I would have guessed that an examination of a medical witness that managed to avoid the crucial questions going to liability would strike at least some of the media types in room as sufficiently odd to be worth reporting on at the time. And as I said above, the whole thing is public record.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

THat's why the point mt brings up is so essential, if this happened at all, it included a cooperating witness.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.

Then I'm not sure where the conspiracy is, if he genuinely changed his mind after the trial. If he thought then that Martin was shot from the front, consistently with Zimmerman's evidence, and has now reconsidered, and thinks Martin was shot in the back and therefore (probably) murdered in cold blood, that's not a conspiracy. It's a simple mistake.

Only if he thought from the start that the evidence showed Zimmerman's defence to be false, and, presumably, said so in his initial report (because which is the entry wound and which the exit wound is pretty significant, in the examination of a gun shot victim), and would, if asked, have given that as his professional opinion, is there the basis for asserting a conspiracy to get Zimmerman off. But in that case, either the medical expert was a willing participant (why? and if so, why believe anything someone says if they are willing to falsify professional evidence in a murder trial?), or, and this was what was originally suggested on this thread, the prosecutor called him hoping he would somehow fail to state his true opinion. Which would indeed be a conspiracy, but is completely implausible. That sort of thing doesn't happen in real life.

It's not that I think the idea of a conspiracy to get a defendant off implausible - it's that the mechanics of this particular alleged conspiracy don't work.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
. . . And Moo has set out above evidence to the effect that the shirt was away from the body when the gun was fired, and that this supported a theory that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman. This seems to be a case of a disgruntled employee and one doing his claim for unjust dismissal no good at all.
Whoops -- neglected to include the fact that a shirt can hang away from the body from the back or side as well as from the front; it all depends on whether the individual is leaning forward, sideways, or backward.

There were powder burns surrounding the hole in the front of the shirt. If he was shot in the back, how did those powder burns get there?

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Moo, I'm not claiming he was shot in the back; someone else is apparently making (and has now perhaps withdrawn) that claim.

Neither am I claiming there was a conspiracy to get Z off.

That said, my job brings me into occasional contact with kids of Martin's age. The current fashion on high school campuses I visit (things might be different in Florida) seems to be for adolescent males to wear loose, large clothing. In a few cases, it's a wonder those clothers stay on them.

From what I've seen, it wouldn't be that hard to grab hold of the front of someone's large, loose hoodie, and as he twisted away from me trying to get loose, end up with some portion of his back toward me while I still had part of the front of his hoodie in my hand.

What would happen if I shot him at that moment? "The front" of something the size of a tall guy's hoodie comprises a fairly substantial area, especially at close range; so does a tall guy's back.

I don't claim this happened. I don't even think it's especially likely. I do think it's possible, though, that a shot could be fired through the front of a hoodie but into the back of its wearer.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Pure speculation Porridge and not consistent with any of the other evidence given. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander who saw a person dressed in the same coloured top as Martin on top of a person dressed in clothing coloured as Zimmerman's. And a colleague who practises in crime assures me that, at least here, that or a minor variation on it is a standard question. A well prepped expert witness knows how to go from there.

Golden Key, TV shows and movies are not generally a good place to obtain an understanding of litigation in practice. What you refer to from your watching experience is pure fantasy.

Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.

It would be lovely if that were true, but we've had ample evidence, mostly thru the innocence project linked above, that that is not the case, at least in the US-- even with capital cases where the stakes are literally life-and-death. Again, I don't know that this particular case was botched or mishandled, but one certainly can't say with confidence that is was not simply because it was a murder trial.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Golden Key, TV shows and movies are not generally a good place to obtain an understanding of litigation in practice. What you refer to from your watching experience is pure fantasy.

...which is why I made a point of saying I didn't know how often it happened in real life.

However, shows a) often do "straight-from-the-news plots", and b) have advisors for the technical legal stuff. Plus legal procedural novels are often written by lawyers, and then get made into films/shows. So there may be some truth to the portrayals

quote:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.

They *should* be thoroughly prepared. But they often screw up. Did you read any of the innocence project links I posted? If not, try the Innocence Project. It's one of many groups who work to help clear wrongly-convicted persons.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.

A medical examiner who changes his mind about whether a bullet entered the chest or the back isn't exactly going to survive a cross-examination NOW, is he?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.

Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply. Ginsberg's dissent (starting on p. 32 of the PDF) is particularly scathing and details most of the flaws in the opinion of the court.

At any rate, given that prosecutors face no repercussions for withholding evidence and have demonstrated a willingness to do so even in capital murder cases, why the automatic assumption that this doesn't happen in other cases?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Pure speculation Porridge and not consistent with any of the other evidence given. Indeed, it is totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander who saw a person dressed in the same coloured top as Martin on top of a person dressed in clothing coloured as Zimmerman's. And a colleague who practises in crime assures me that, at least here, that or a minor variation on it is a standard question. A well prepped expert witness knows how to go from there.

Which is why I said I didn't think the scenario was likely, merely possible.

Nor is the speculation quite pure. Martin was wearing a hoodie; Martin was over 6 feet tall. It isn't even "totally inconsistent with the evidence of a bystander," who saw only part of the confrontation / struggle between Z and M. That confrontation went on for some minutes, and the bystander (if I recall correctly) saw only part of it -- neither the beginning nor the end.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.

I may be misremembering, but I think the most serious charge possible in Z's trial was manslaughter, not murder.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

My bad: the charges were manslaughter or second-degree murder. Of course, Z was acquitted on both charges, and it's hard to see how the jury, given the testimony they heard and the instructions they were given, could have done otherwise.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly it's that if you want to bury the truth it's not a good idea to call as a witness the person who knows the truth and, apparently, desires to tell it.
You err. He didn't desire to tell it then; he does now. He said as much -- that he changed his mind about the case.
Then I'm not sure where the conspiracy is, if he genuinely changed his mind after the trial. If he thought then that Martin was shot from the front, consistently with Zimmerman's evidence, and has now reconsidered, and thinks Martin was shot in the back and therefore (probably) murdered in cold blood, that's not a conspiracy. It's a simple mistake.

In this copy of his his autopsy report, the medical examiner states that "The entrance wound is located on the left chest ... the wound track passes directly from front to back ... There is no wound of exit."

It's hard to see how Dr. Bao could reconcile that with the idea that Martin was shot in the back - but perhaps he's not actually claiming that. The "ME now says shot in the back" idea seems to have originated with this Alternet article which now includes this note at the end:

quote:
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story said that Dr. Bao claimed Martin had been shot from the back. That cannot be verified at this time. Reports indicate that he did however say that examiniation of the wound revealed that Martin could not have been on top of Zimmerman at the shooting, and the physical evidence indicated that Martin could not have been the aggressor.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply.

Huh? As I read it, it's a civil case deciding whether civil liability as against the district attorney's office for failure to train prosecutors on their disclosure obligations was established on these facts. It doesn't say the prosecution can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.

As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death. The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Huh? As I read it, it's a civil case deciding whether civil liability as against the district attorney's office for failure to train prosecutors on their disclosure obligations was established on these facts. It doesn't say the prosecution can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence.

That's the practical upshot of the result. Combined with the existing absolute immunity enjoyed by prosecutors, this decision closed off the last avenue a wronged defendant would have available for seeking redress for government attempts to frame and execute him. If there's no consequences attached to doing so, why can't prosecutors deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence? A legal prohibition without an enforcement mechanism isn't really a legal prohibition.

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death.

Given that prosecutions for capital crimes are rarely handled by a single individual, this seems more like locating a conveniently dead scapegoat on whom to blame all past bad actions. I'm not saying Deegan was innocent, just that I doubt he was acting alone.

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.

Yeah, maybe he'd have gotten a public reprimand too! That's pretty comparable to fourteen years on death row. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, this was a murder trial - the most serious of criminal trials, bar treason. Both prosecution and defence would have been thoroughly prepared.
Not necessarily. One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with prosecutorial misconduct, Connick v. Thompson [PDF], dealt with a murder trial during which the prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court held that suppressing evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a capital case does not qualify as misconduct or, if it does, not to the degree where any penalty should apply. Ginsberg's dissent (starting on p. 32 of the PDF) is particularly scathing and details most of the flaws in the opinion of the court.

At any rate, given that prosecutors face no repercussions for withholding evidence and have demonstrated a willingness to do so even in capital murder cases, why the automatic assumption that this doesn't happen in other cases?

Here, not only would a prosecutor who did that be dismissed, but would also be struck off (disbarred) for breach of the Bar Rules. It's a horrifying decision.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

And then there's Texas... where a judge was sleeping with the prosecutor isn't necessarily cause for a retrial.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I don't know how that judge was appointed, but judges in my state are appointed until age 72 (it's 70 for Federal judges, by the Constitution s.72) as long as they behave themselves*. A judge who does not can be removed from office by a vote of both houses of Parliament. I suspect that were a judge to sleep with a person who was at the same time conducting cases in that court, the most probable result would be resignation. Otherwise, there would be a quick removal. The prosecutor would be struck off.

* The Latin for this is quamdiu se bene gesserit, from the time when a judge's commission was written in Latin. One of our Shipmates has the board name of Bene Gesserit.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, maybe he'd have gotten a public reprimand too! That's pretty comparable to fourteen years on death row.

I have no idea what the consequences for the prosecutor would have been. Hopefully more severe than that. In Canada I would expect that he would have been fired and lost his license to practice. (And probably sued, too -- not easy to sue a prosecutor in Canada but offhand I'd guess this one meets the standard.)

If you're right that American law has protected prosecutors from suffering any real consequences for deliberate misconduct, then yes that's a real problem. But that's not what this case says.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
If you're right that American law has protected prosecutors from suffering any real consequences for deliberate misconduct, then yes that's a real problem. But that's not what this case says.

In one egregious case, that of the Duke lacrosse players, the prosecutor was disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt. He was sentenced to one day in jail. [Roll Eyes]

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
* The Latin for this is quamdiu se bene gesserit, from the time when a judge's commission was written in Latin. One of our Shipmates has the board name of Bene Gesserit.

I'd be willing to bet they were quite unfamiliar with this legal phrase or this use of the words, but rather took the name from Dune.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

In another recent case there's been problems with the Illinois Circuit judges who have been very quick to enable copyright trolls. A judge resigned after being charged with heroin addiction. It came to light when his fellow judge died of cocaine overdose in his hunting cabin.

judge charged with heroin use

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
As far as I can tell from Scalia's concurring opinion, the prosecutor (Gerry Deegan) who deliberately witheld the evidence confessed to a colleague shortly before his death. The colleague then kept quiet about this for five years, a decision that appropriately led to disciplinary consequences. One can only assume that if Deegan were still alive when this was discovered, he too would have been facing discliplinary consequences -- hopefully not trivial ones either.

And here I am thinking Mike Nifong was as bad as it gets.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Zimmerman's soon-to-be ex-wife is now saying she has doubts about his innocence in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

http://www.today.com/news/george-zimmermans-wife-i-have-doubts-i-also-believe-evidence-8C11257699

Hell hath no fury...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Zimmerman's soon-to-be ex-wife is now saying she has doubts about his innocence in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

http://www.today.com/news/george-zimmermans-wife-i-have-doubts-i-also-believe-evidence-8C11257699

Hell hath no fury...

Yeah this is probably best seen as a bit of revenge rather than any indication of what happened on the night Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Yeah this is probably best seen as a bit of revenge rather than any indication of what happened on the night Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

I did allude to that, yes. She is a convicted liar - plead guilty to perjury.

If what she's saying has any merit, the fact that they're in a bitter divorce pretty much negates anything that comes out of her mouth.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I wonder also whether the interviewer manipulated her into saying things she didn't really believe.

After the Virginia Tech shootings some reporters wanted to write stories saying that everyone was clamoring for the resignation of the university president or for gun control. They had their stories all written, and just needed quotes. In fact, everyone here was too numb to say very much. I heard about a student who was very distressed that she was pushed into saying things against the president that she strongly disagreed with.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Meanwhile, back at the autopsy ranch, Dr. Shiping Bao, whose testimony in the Zimmerman case raised questions, is in the news again.

Curioser and curioser. Florida criminal justice is beginning to resemble a soap opera. Is Bao trawling for fame? Was Hermann concealing evidence? Is Volusia County rife with corruption? Tune in for the next autopsy and see . . . !

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0