Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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'.

---

Posted                          

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."

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
. . . teenager had taken matters into his own hands EVERY BIT AS MUCH as the shooter had.

---

Posted                       

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.)

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                          

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Huh?
It appears you've left out yet another option: don't suspect anybody and have no crime committed,

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Or option D, suspect someone when there's some evidence of guilt.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Try this: Notice suspicious activity. I.e. looking in windows or over hedges, testing doors, etc.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

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"?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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".

---

Posted                      

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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".

---

Posted                      

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.



[ 30. July 2013, 06:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how Martin could have known enough about Zimmerman to label him a racist.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!