|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Zimmerman acquitted
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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 can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Bits of the first post I linked to are rather unpleasant in tone, so here is a rather less contentious one.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Less contentious, but still not proving the point the author is trying to make.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, apologies, I misunderstood. He could still have returned to the vehicle.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
