So if I ad hom you for everything wrong in Texas (where you live), you'd be ok with that? Good to know.This is also Florida.
I'd try to leaven that statement with levity and pointing out Fark.com, but I'm not feeling particularly amused or mirthful. 2000 Election, Casey Anthony, and a metric tonnage of other tales of things wrong with the state in general.
Also Marissa Alexander, as mentioned by the Grey Lensman.
I would encourage it, albeit with the caveat that I am a DamnYankee, and as such am to the locals everything that is wrong with the state.
Abyss know I certainly see enough of the ridiculous things that happen here and ask, "WHY doesn't Texas have a Fark tag yet?" Then I realize that the main reason is that, for all the crap we give Florida, you guys get some of the most inexplicably magical occurrences of wildlife, citizenry, weather, and a big dollop of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot for good measure. When something weird happens in Florida, it has a special sort of citrus fresh smell to it.
Texas 'special' moments are either beer-and-roadkill scented, reek of old oil money and malice, or smell like gunpowder. And beer and roadkill.
Right now, my delivery is a bit flat. Disappointment sours humor. It's really bad for ribbing, even when it's intended as good-natured.
I blame Texas. Or at least the legislature right now. The legislature and the weather. Actually, skip it, I blame Texas. Anyone willing to sell an evacuation airlift that's going anywhere but Florida?
Late edit - when I cite, I try to show my work, so...
So, does anybody know why the Jury didn't call this manslaughter?Presumably because they didn't believe the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.
That sucks. I didn't realize that self defense could play into it since Zimmerman made the choice to get out of his car and thereby, (assuming his testimony is true; I know it's a big assumption) cause a situation he couldn't control.
I don't know what definition of "watch" as in "neighborhood watch" includes "step out of the car and break bad on somebody who isn't posing an immediate threat to life and limb" as a choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said to others who have held this attitude, did you actually watch the entire trial or are you basing your opinion on what was said in the media, what you heard from friends, or your own personal bias?This is nothing but a ridiculously blatant Ad hom. "You are biased, therefore you are wrong". This particular bit of epistemic nihlism is particularly glaring as EVERYONE has bias therefore everyone is wrong.
If you have an argument from facts against what I sad by all means make it. If you think there's something I don't know that invalidates my argument by all means point it out. But throwing down a blanket "you don't know everything you can't know everything so you have trust someone elses decision" is a hackneyed, trite, and blatantly obvious tactic for completely evading rational discourse, not engaging in it.
I did watch most of the trial due to a current work situation and having free time to do so. Let me see if I can address some of the issues you raise.
There was no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black. It certainly is probable that Zimmerman began to follow Martin because he was blackHis starting to follow martin is what lead to martin's death. His suspicions were based solely on race. Martin is dead because he's black. Zimmerman isn't convicted because the jury finds walking while black to be suspicious and a black guy to be scary enough to warrant a threat to your life just by being there.
Martin had far more reason to shoot zimmerman than zimmerman had to shoot martin, yet if he had he would be in jail.
Zimmerman was not convicted because there wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Why, because the physical evidence showed that the most likely way the fight was going was (a)Zimmerman was not a physical threat to Trayvon, (b)Trayvon had total control of the encounter once started, (c)calls from neighbors did not stop the beating Trayvon was giving Zimmerman.
Now that doesn't prove that Trayvon started the encounter, I would agree that it is at least as likely that Zimmerman started it, but from most people's experience it is the aggressor (the one controlling and dominating) in the fight who starts the fight. Not always, but usually. The fact that Trayvon had no injuries prior to the gun shot would support the suggestion that Trayvon was the aggressor more than it supports Zimmerman was. That is where the reasonable doubt comes in.
It completely ignores the fact that Martin had the opportunity to break the chain of errors that lead to his death, but instead opted to confront Zimmerman.1) we only have Zimmermans word that that's what happened. Given everything else the wanabe cop was doing i wouldn't be surprised if he'd actually tried to tackle Martin.
We also have physical evidence to support what he said. And no physical evidence to contradict what he said. He said he was on the bottom getting beaten and he drew his gun and fired with Martin on top. The evidence supports this. The gun was touching the fabric of the shirt but was not pushed against the skin of Martin. Zimmerman was injuried (whether badly or not, nobody says he wasn't injuried), Martin was not injuried prior to the gun shot.
Not let's be clear, evidence that supports his claims isn't evidence of proof of his claims, instead it is evidence that says his claims could be true, as well as other things. But there is no evidence his claims were false.
2) Martin had every legal right to attack Zimmerman. Stand your ground applies FAR more to martin's alleged attack (hiding in bushes that franky, aren't there than what is unquestionably Zimmerman chasing after martin.
It very well may have both were legally allowed to act exactly as they did. Martin could have been legally allowed to stand his ground against someone he thought meant to do bodily harm to him and Zimmerman could have been legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself. This isn't a zero sum issue here. Much of the law is based on the perception of the person involved.
Zimmerman may not have meant any physical harm to come to Martin, but Martin may not have believed that. He could have been totally rational in his belief that he had to use force to defend himself.
In Zimmerman's mind he might have been just trying to keep an eye on this guy till the cops show up and then he gets attacked. He could reasonably believe he needed to use deadly force to protect himself.
In that case, Zimmerman is innocent, as is Martin. Both are innocent. The fact that one died just goes to show that maybe being in the right still doesn't mean your choice of actions is the best. Basically a horrible situation where nobody was "wrong".
I will say, if all Zimmerman did was try to follow Martin however zealously and not actually try to tackle him or assault him in someway, then I do not believe that a beat down would have been morally appropriate it, legally perhaps, but not morally. It would appear to some people the act of following in and of itself was justification of the use of force.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I believe that Zimmerman was in the wrong the moment the police dispatcher told him not to follow. That said, with the way the laws in Florida work, it's difficult to get a murder conviction in these circumstances, and even harder when the majority of the prosecution's witnesses turn into defense witnesses under cross-examination. Personally I think that 'Stand Your Ground' legislation goes too far. There is a big difference between 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand Your Ground.'
This case actually had nothing to do with "stand your ground". Stand your Ground creates a pre-trial hearing to determine if a trial is even necessary. In this case the state decided to try Zimmerman despite "Stand your Ground". The case was solely about self-defense and would have been handled in practically the exact same manner in every jurisdiction.
That being said, walking your neighborhood and asking strangers what they are doing does not "create a situation". Being armed per your 2nd amendment rights also does not "create a situation". The idea that we only have a right to be safe in our homes is a pretty sad one to me. The law is virtually identical everywhere in the U.S. in this respect. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere. We should not simply accept the idea that the streets belong to criminals and that outside of our homes we can only be defenseless victims.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is nothing but a ridiculously blatant Ad hom. "You are biased, therefore you are wrong". This particular bit of epistemic nihlism is particularly glaring as EVERYONE has bias therefore everyone is wrong.
If you have an argument from facts against what I sad by all means make it. If you think there's something I don't know that invalidates my argument by all means point it out. But throwing down a blanket "you don't know everything you can't know everything so you have trust someone elses decision" is a hackneyed, trite, and blatantly obvious tactic for completely evading rational discourse, not engaging in it.
Really? I'm not trying to argue by invalidating you, I was asking you if you were basing your opinion on having actually watched the trial or not. If you had watched the entire trial, but came to a different conclusion than the jury, I would give your remarks some credence. But if you're just ranting because you don't like the verdict (and you didn't watch the trial and didn't get all of the information that the jury had), you're being hateful and spiteful.
His starting to follow martin is what lead to martin's death.
There is no doubt that, in hind sight, Zimmerman made some poor choices, but he did nothing illegal in his actions leading up to the tragedy.
His suspicions were based solely on race.
These suspicions are not so "racist" when you put them into context by taking into account that there had been reports of other illicit activity that had supposedly been committed by other black juveniles in the weeks prior to the tragedy.
Martin is dead because he's black.
No, Martin is dead because he had Zimmerman in a position in which Zimmerman felt that his life was in jeopardy.
Zimmerman isn't convicted because the jury finds walking while black to be suspicious and a black guy to be scary enough to warrant a threat to your life just by being there.
Zimmerman wasn't found to be guilty because the jury felt there wasn't sufficient evidence (or they felt that the State didn't provide a sufficient enough argument) to convict him of 2nd Degree Murder or Manslaughter.
There's nothing disingenuous about it. Its what happened.
It's an over-simplified version of what happened that is purely based on hindsight. Furthermore, it completely ignores the fact that, at the time of confrontation, Martin had as much of a responsibility in what transpired as Zimmerman.
1) we only have Zimmermans word that that's what happened. Given everything else the wanabe cop was doing i wouldn't be surprised if he'd actually tried to tackle Martin.
That could certainly be a possibility, but there is no evidence to support that that did happen. Hence, it is not considered in determining guilt or innocence.
2) Martin had every legal right to attack Zimmerman. Stand your ground applies FAR more to martin's alleged attack (hiding in bushes that franky, aren't there) than what is unquestionably Zimmerman chasing after martin.
Martin would have the right to defend himself if Zimmerman had presented himself as a threat, but Martin would not have had a right to attack purely on the basis that he was being followed. Furthermore, the "Stand Your Ground" statutes were not being used in this case.
They were obvious in foresight, which is why the 911 operator told him to stay in the car.
Zimmerman did not break any laws by not listening to the 911 Operator's advice to remain in the car. Again, that was one of many decisions that could have been made to change the outcome. Martin, no doubt, had opportunities to affect the outcome as well. To completely ignore that fact is being disingenuous.
...and I just responded to the wrong post in part, so I know you only spoke to some of what I just said. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
|
|
So, does anybody know why the Jury didn't call this manslaughter?Presumably because they didn't believe the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.That sucks. I didn't realize that self defense could play into it since Zimmerman made the choice to get out of his car and thereby, (assuming his testimony is true; I know it's a big assumption) cause a situation he couldn't control.
I don't know what definition of "watch" as in "neighborhood watch" includes "step out of the car and break bad on somebody who isn't posing an immediate threat to life and limb" as a choice.
This video does a decent job, I think, of addressing your concerns. I posted the link earlier (via a blog), but figured it was worth mentioning again considering no one commented on it. It is made by a guy with military and law enforcement experience. He brings up a number of good points for all of us to consider as we continue to "armchair quarterback" the results of this trial.
Please give some of the contradictory evidence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why, because the physical evidence showed that the most likely way the fight was going was (a)Zimmerman was not a physical threat to Trayvon
Its not how much of the trial you watched that I'm questioning, its how much actual thought you've put into it that I'm questioning.
Your argument is that the person who killed someone was not a physical threat to the person they killed.
Now that doesn't prove that Trayvon started the encounter, I would agree that it is at least as likely that Zimmerman started it, but from most people's experience it is the aggressor (the one controlling and dominating) in the fight who starts the fight
Absolute, total, and complete blatherskite.
You cannot causally connect the person winning the fight with the person who started the fight. It is VERY possible to have someone else start the fight and then take the advantage in it.
We also have physical evidence to support what he said. And no physical evidence to contradict what he said.
The bushes are not big enough or close enough for treyvon to pop out of them.
Trevons dna is not on the gun that he was allegedly reaching for.
How well the gunshot pattern matches Zimmermans story depends on which expert you're listening too.
And you're not listening to my point, because none of that matters because by Zimmermans OWN story, even IF you accept every last word of what he said, he's still guilty.
It would appear to some people the act of following in and of itself was justification of the use of force.
Someone with no uniform, no ID, doesn't identify themselves and starts running after you (he can clearly be heard running on his own 911 call) what are you supposed to think?
Zimmerman is the guilty party because 1) He started the fight by running after martin, even if he didn't try to tackle treyvon. 2) He escalated the fight from fists to a gun and 3) Martin's suspicions of being attacked were justified given the information he had. Zimmerman was acting on a sum total of "black guy matches the description of some home break ins"
Despite what this guy said about "social risk avoidance" all the neighborhood watch organization teach you not to due what Zimmerman did. Don't pursue. Don't confront. Don't patrol armed.
Well, I don't think that a volunteer fireman, in the spirit of "social risk avoidance," should try to urinate on a blazing gasoline pump fire, which I think would be a more apt comparison than the sexual assault example given in the video.
|
|
Well, I don't think that a volunteer fireman, in the spirit of "social risk avoidance," should try to urinate on a blazing gasoline pump fire, which I think would be a more apt comparison than the sexual assault example given in the video.
Despite what this guy said about "social risk avoidance" all the neighborhood watch organization teach you not to due what Zimmerman did. Don't pursue. Don't confront. Don't patrol armed.
No, but it wouldn't be outside the realm of rational thought to think that a volunteer firefighter would do what she could to minimize or contain until more help arrived.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? I'm not trying to argue by invalidating you, I was asking you if you were basing your opinion on having actually watched the trial or not. If you had watched the entire trial, but came to a different conclusion than the jury, I would give your remarks some credence. But if you're just ranting because you don't like the verdict (and you didn't watch the trial and didn't get all of the information that the jury had), you're being hateful and spiteful.
My points are what matters, not me.
There is no doubt that, in hind sight, Zimmerman made some poor choices, but he did nothing illegal in his actions leading up to the tragedy.
they were perfectly foreseeable in foresight, which is why the 9 11 opperator told him to stay in the car. A cop with a gun, tazer, handcuffs, pepper spray and bullet proof vest is suppopsed to wait for backup in that situation precisely because of the risk of getting overtaken. An untrained, under equipped police wanna be with just a gun has only one option if things go wrong.
These suspicions are not so "racist" when you put them into context by taking into account that there had been reports of other illicit activity that had supposedly been committed by other black juveniles in the weeks prior to the tragedy.
It becomes slightly less racist but no less moronic to fit an individual to such a vague description in florida. If they were in rural wyoming, sure, it would make sense.
No, Martin is dead because he had Zimmerman in a position in which Zimmerman felt that his life was in jeopardy.
And Zimmerman was in that position because he wanted to play policeman and went chasing after someone his mixed martial arts didn't let him handle.
Martin had as much of a responsibility in what transpired as Zimmerman.
Malarky. First off Martin had just reason for thinking that his life was in imminent danger (and he was right). Zimmerman did not, he was perfectly safe in his car.
Secondly, Zimmerman accepted a far greater responsibility to act responsibly when he decided to walk around with a gun. Martin made no conscious decision to take the power of life and death into his hands: Zimmerman did and he showed himself unworthy of it.
Martin would have the right to defend himself if Zimmerman had presented himself as a threat, but Martin would not have had a right to attack purely on the basis that he was being followed.
Someone running down a dark street after you is presenting themselves as a threat. Attacking based on that is far more reasonable than what Zimmerman did.
Furthermore, the "Stand Your Ground" statutes were not being used in this case.
I thought you said you watched the trial? His criminal justice instructor Covered the topic extensively and Zimmermans own statements to police practically quoted the law.
Zimmerman did not break any laws by not listening to the 911 Operator's advice to remain in the car.
Did i say that he broke the law?
You keep sliding away from my points rather than answering him. The outcome, or several more that would have been slightly less tragic, were perfectly foreseeable.
Again, that was one of many decisions that could have been made to change the outcome. Martin, no doubt, had opportunities to affect the outcome as well. To completely ignore that fact is being disingenuous.
Martin was a scared , unarmed 17 year old kid being chased down a dark street. He doesn't know what weapons Zimmerman has on him, he doesn't know how fast zimmerman can run, he doesn't know if zimmerman has friends waiting around the corner. I don't expect good decision making based on the information he has because he has absolutely zero information as to whats going on.
Its not how much of the trial you watched that I'm questioning, its how much actual thought you've put into it that I'm questioning.
Please try not to be insulting. I assume you are a thoughtful person, I would ask you give me the same benefit. How much I watched is important because I didn't get much of the facts that were presented through the filter of asocial commentator's bias perspective. I heard the statements straight from the horse's mouth.
Your argument is that the person who killed someone was not a physical threat to the person they killed.
Not at all. I am saying prior to the gun becoming an issue, he was not physical threat. If there was never a gun involved, and apparently all but the last second or less there wasn't one, Zimmerman would have been no physical danger to Trayvon. I might give weight to your position if the prosecution was saying and have some kind of proof (sound evidence from phone calls perhaps) that Zimmerman was running around with his weapon drawn.
You cannot causally connect the person winning the fight with the person who started the fight. It is VERY possible to have someone else start the fight and then take the advantage in it.
I acknowledged that it is possible that the person with all the injuries might have started the fight and the person with none of the injuries (other than the gunshot wound) might have been the victim. I said just that from most people's experience that is not how it usually happens. Remember we are talking about reasonable doubt here, not absolute fact. If someone can reasonably believe that the guy on top doing the beat down started the fight, had control of the fight, and was not stopping the fight, then you have to vote not guilty in this case. It doesn't even require that you yourself believe that is how it happened, merely is it reasonable to have that doubt that it could have.
The bushes are not big enough or close enough for treyvon to pop out of them.
Trevons dna is not on the gun that he was allegedly reaching for.
Those are statement inconsistencies. Those aren't evidence. He said he wasn't sure where Martin came from. Out of the bushes is a common enough equivalent for out of nowhere. As for the whole gun thing, I think probably Martin never saw it or touch it, but that doesn't actually matter. If Zimmerman had a reasonable belief he did, maybe Martin looked down at that moment then he could act on that belief. Again much of the self-defense legal language has to do with perception, not just objective reality.
How well the gunshot pattern matches Zimmermans story depends on which expert you're listening too.
Possibly, but the experts I saw for the prosecution said they test and determined the gun was in contact with the clothes. When asked if they tested and determined if it was pressed up against they body they said they had not tested that.
The defense expert witnesses did test for that, and determined that the weapon was 2-4 inches from the skin. These two experts were not in contradiction with each other, they were just testing for different things. The defense never claimed the gun wasn't touching the clothes.
And you're not listening to my point, because none of that matters because by Zimmermans OWN story, even IF you accept every last word of what he said, he's still guilty.
How? The prosecution admitted he didn't do anything illegal up until the fight. He says he didn't start the fight, he got his rear kicked, called for help, and only shot when he thought his life was in danger. Under that description he wouldn't be guilty. Giving slightly inconsistent statements isn't proof of guilt, as the police officers and other experts testified.
Someone earlier said that half the offense witnesses became defense witnesses on cross. Maybe because the offense was in error about the facts of the case, perhaps?
Someone with no uniform, no ID, doesn't identify themselves and starts running after you (he can clearly be heard running on his own 911 call) what are you supposed to think?
I have already said that it is entirely possible that Martin was totally in the right legally to meet Zimmerman with force if he reasonably believed he was in physical danger. Again, both parties could be in the right legally. It is not a zero sum situation. One doesn't have to be wrong in order for the other to be right.
Zimmerman is the guilty party because 1) He started the fight by running after martin, even if he didn't try to tackle treyvon.
When you say "started the fight", how do you mean that statement? Legally? Morally? Again, the prosecutors said in their closing statements that Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal by getting out of the car and chasing Martin.
I would say the encounter was started then, but the fight didn't happen until the first blow (or tackle) was thrown.
2) He escalated the fight from fists to a gun and
If Zimmerman was incapable of competing with Martin on a level of fists, he is not required to take his buttwhooping like a "real man" instead of trying to defend himself with the means he can use.
3) Martin's suspicions of being attacked were justified given the information he had.
I am willing to accept that. Again, Martin's legal and justifiable behavior in and of itself doesn't mean that Zimmerman's behavior wasn't legal and justifiable. Both could be in the "right" legally.
Zimmerman was acting on a sum total of "black guy matches the description of some home break ins"
I certainly think he took and (overly zealous) interest in Martin because of that reason yes. Do I think it is possible that is why he shot him? Maybe it is possible, but I think the whooping he was receiving at the time as he screamed like a little girl had much more to do with the actually shooting itself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My morbid curiosity got the better of me and I just had to look at what everyone else was saying on this.
Must say I'm not surprised by the all the hating going on.
From both sides.
The simple fact of the matter is that though he was advised to not follow Martin, Zimmerman doing the opposite didn't break the law. On the other hand, the 17-year old could have just as easily continued on to his father's house. By all accounts, he was close enough that he could have gotten his father to confront the man.
The truth is that stupid actions were taken by both parties and a life was tragically cut short as a result.
The trial should have never happened. This kind of thing happens in America on a daily basis. Yet what made this one case so different was the political spin put on it by the media. They clearly were looking for a cause and thought they had one with this racist white guy named Zimmerman gunning down a poor black kid armed with only a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. It's why someone at NBC altered Zimmerman's 911 audio to make him seem more racist than he truly was (turns out he was answering the questions put to him by the dispatcher). It's why for the longest time the only pictures of Martin that were seen were those of him much younger than he actually was at the time. It's why Spike Lee circulated a message which claimed to give the home address of the shooter. The address turned out to be incorrect, causing the occupants to leave home and stay at a hotel. They're so caught up in advancing the cause that they don't care who they hurt or how they get there, just as long as the cause is served.
The problem with that is that the 'ends justifies the means' mentality inherent in that form of activism has set race relations in this country back by sixty years.
I'm not defending Zimmerman. I'm not defending Martin. Both acted in a manner that was less than intelligent. None of this needed to happen. But it did, and now we must live with the result.
For better or worse.
My only hope is that we as a people can learn from this and use it to better ourselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they were perfectly foreseeable in foresight, which is why the 9 11 opperator told him to stay in the car. A cop with a gun, tazer, handcuffs, pepper spray and bullet proof vest is suppopsed to wait for backup in that situation precisely because of the risk of getting overtaken. An untrained, under equipped police wanna be with just a gun has only one option if things go wrong.
It becomes slightly less racist but no less moronic to fit an individual to such a vague description in florida. If they were in rural wyoming, sure, it would make sense.
And Zimmerman was in that position because he wanted to play policeman and went chasing after someone his mixed martial arts didn't let him handle.
Malarky. First off Martin had just reason for thinking that his life was in imminent danger (and he was right). Zimmerman did not, he was perfectly safe in his car.
Secondly, Zimmerman accepted a far greater responsibility to act responsibly when he decided to walk around with a gun. Martin made no conscious decision to take the power of life and death into his hands: Zimmerman did and he showed himself unworthy of it.
Did i say that he broke the law?
You keep sliding away from my points rather than answering him. The outcome, or several more that would have been slightly less tragic, were perfectly foreseeable.
Martin was a scared , unarmed 17 year old kid being chased down a dark street. He doesn't know what weapons Zimmerman has on him, he doesn't know how fast zimmerman can run, he doesn't know if zimmerman has friends waiting around the corner. I don't expect good decision making based on the information he has because he has absolutely zero information as to whats going on.
I completely agree that Zimmerman made stupid decisions. But just because he acted stupidly, does not mean he should have been convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What of martin's possible drug use? his internet handles? Any news that brought those up or showed a recent picture of what he ACTUALLY looked like was called racist.
I'm sure Zimmerman took into account the kid's internet handles and drug history, and then made an informed choice to follow him with a gun, and shoot him dead...
However, had he survived the gunshot, he probably would have been tried for aggrivated assault at the very least, if not attempted murder.So Stand Your Ground laws don't allow black teenagers to defend themselves?
Oh, he definitely could have used it. Notice Kryzbyn said tried not convicted.
Sadly though, and this is where the real discrimination comes in and not just racism but more of class-ism, it is just that minorities are dis-proportionally in the under class economically. It is very likely that if he had lived and was charged, he would have been saddled with a public defender and gotten no press coverage. In which case his chances of getting off would be small. Not because he was in the wrong, but because he would have gotten rail-roaded.
