vas_a_morir
Banned
Not saying you are wrong, but could you clarify? It sounds like an interesting point.
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Not saying you are wrong, but could you clarify? It sounds like an interesting point.
I guess you can give her the benefit of the doubt, but ugh... really poor choice of words when talking about a murder case.
You're correct, but the provocateur is often decided to be the one to initiate first physical contact. I'm not sure about Florida, but usually, words aren't enough on their own. Pursuit is unlikely to be enough on its own. So the legal culpability really does come down to their encounter, of who threw the first punch, or if their was some other thing severe enough to warrant the attack.
Furthermore, extreme escalation severs one's culpability. For example, if I hit you with a pillow, then you hit me with a pillow, then I hit you with a wet towel, then you shoot me with a gun, you were not acting in self-defense, despite the fact that I initiated the fight. Your extreme escalation severed my culpability. If you missed in that scenario, and I picked up a gun and shot you, I could claim self-defense, because once again, even though I initiated the fight, your extreme escalation severed my culpability.
"And the fact that many, many people believe Zimmerman's actions are justified means that the law ought to accommodate it."
Yes, law is changed according to the will of the people (ideally, anyway). But the criterion for sculpting law has never been "many, many people." It's usually "majority." And because this issue has become so politicized, and people hang out with people they're politically similar to, everyone thinks their view is the majority view, so they're clearly right, and a verdict to the opposite would be injustice.
But I agree with your last two sentences. I'm saddened when I see the prosecution make a mistake, and I'm saddened when I see the defense make a mistake. I want the jury to be as well-equipped as possible to make the right decision--not my predetermined preference.
vas_a_morir
Banned
I thought the 'stupidity' thing was kinda mean-spirited, if she is indeed referring to whom I believe she is referring.
If not, well, I guess I'm mean-spirited. lol
The lack of empathy from this lawyer is ridiculous. Its one thing being a criminal defense lawyer and maintaining professionalism and standards
I have no qualms with him representing Zimmerman, or even if he believes Zimmerman didn't do it. His job isn't to judge. You can be against what a person did and still want to get him win his case.
But come on, celebrating how you really hammered a witness or the prosecution with ice cream is disgusting. Why does no one get a teenager was killed, an action that was preventable. How is Trayvon's family supposed to feel knowing their son is six feet under while the lawyer who got their son's killer off the hook is celebrating with ice creams with his kid.
But the case isn't over yet. Premature celebration.
I have no qualms with him representing Zimmerman, or even if he believes Zimmerman didn't do it. His job isn't to judge. You can be against what a person did and still want to get him win his case.
But come on, celebrating how you really hammered a witness or the prosecution with ice cream is disgusting. Why does no one get a teenager was killed, an action that was preventable. How is Trayvon's family supposed to feel knowing their son is six feet under while the lawyer who got their son's killer off the hook is celebrating with ice creams with his kid.
But the case isn't over yet. Premature celebration.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Did she delete her account?
Why? There's spin in both of them, and both are telling a literal truth, according to the evidence. He DID shoot an unarmed kid, and he WAS bashing his face in. And both have spin. "Unarmed" is spin; whether or not Trayvon had a gun or knife is irrelevant if he was beating his head into the concrete. The only reason to repeat "unarmed kid" over and over is to make him seem defenseless. But he obviously wasn't, and had a very real ability to harm Zimmerman.
I'm not saying supporting Trayvon is bad, I'm just saying that the spin is dividing people into two groups who are certain that anyone supporting the other view is a terrible person.
faceless007
Member
You're not making a convincing argument by making this exaggerated false equivalency. Punching someone, while egregious, is nowhere as heinous an act as pulling out a gun and pulling the trigger. One carries the intent to kill, the other doesn't. Even if it weren't, the evidence does not show Zimmerman's face "beat in"; at worst he has a swollen, possibly broken nose (which can happen even from just an accidental strike) and two minor cuts on the back of his head. If the fight were anywhere as brutal and evenly matched as Zimmerman has said it was, I would expect more damage.
To get to your broader question, Martin is being rallied around because his death is symbolic of the larger problem of how minorities are racially profiled and how violence against them, especially in low-income communities, is treated as more acceptable than against non-minorities. The arguments from the right hailing Zimmerman all have an abhorrent subtext of "Martin should have known better than to be there, wearing what he was, acting like he was"; it's an argument that black people should expect to be racially profiled and it's their own damn fault. I can't say, due to the absurdities of Florida law, whether Zimmerman is legally guilty of a crime that night, but I can say that he is without a doubt ethically culpable for Martin's death because of his decision to take the law into his own hands and pursue Martin -- an unarmed 17-year-old with, as far as we know, no ill intent toward anyone -- with a loaded gun, for no reason other than that he looked suspicious and was wearing a hoodie. No society that respects the rule of law or the equal protection of its citizens should reward or encourage his behavior that night, and a not guilty verdict, though it might technically apply in this instance, would essentially vindicate those who think they have a right to play vigilante and can wield loaded firearms at anyone they don't like.
There is quite literally only one circumstance under which Zimmerman's actions that night would be morally justified, and that is if Martin was deliberately trying to kill him. Not just that he threw the first punch, but that he was actually trying to kill him. Not even punching him in the head would justify killing Martin, unless you believe assault and battery should be a capital crime.
Just looking at it from a moral perspective.
If both sides of the argument were on equal footing morally, they wouldn't have to spin anything to make it sound as bad as killing an unarmed person.
The public outrage stems from a lot of people thinking a person who killed an unarmed teenager should have been under MUCH more scrutiny than he was originally. If there were no protests, Zimmerman probably wasn't even going to see the inside of a court room.
You can easily kill someone with a simple punch. The human body is quite fragile if you happen to hit just the right spot. You can't say that someone is not allowed to defend themselves with every available tool because they are 'only' being punched in the face, because that can easily cause permanent brain damage and death.
Martins intentions are also completely irrelevant to the case. Whether Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman or not, all that matters is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life.
TheKaeptain
Banned
this posted yet... ?
the fuck
The chick in the middle... yes.
Excellent, excellent post faceless. You totally took my thinking and put it in word form.
The only way is GZ is justified is if they actually were in a scuffle for the weapon as he claims and TM indeed have intent to kill. But from the murky details and evidence even this cannot be claimed.
The reactions from the right wing regarding the case have disgusted me to no end. I don't align with any politics, I abhor its current state..
But the pure vitrol seen regarding minorities in this country astounds me everyday. Like I'm suppose to apologize for being born with color. I treat everyone at a base equal level and I then make judgements on their ACTIONS...
And it completely saddens me to the core at the very existence of people not wanting to do the same for me. I think this is why I connect with this case so much, I think a lot of people feel this way aside from the countless others who purely view this as a black and white issue.
Pun very much so intended. Yes I know GZ isn't white.
Xenon
Member
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=147978
Look at this story. If their races were reversed there would have been outrage and it absolutely would have gone to trial.
faceless007
Member
I didn't say a punch can't kill (obviously it can); I said a punch doesn't carry the intent to kill. There's a difference. And I said explicitly I was speaking about the ethics of what happened, not the legality.
But, thats the police doing their background check on Trayvon. some of Gaf on the otherhand, well.. ignore all of this. He had a facebook photo with a gun, and gold teeth.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/video-shows-zimmermans-account-fatal-fight-1
Even if Trayvon was the aggressor, he was the person being harassed and followed just for walking down the street. He didn't know the guy was some wannabe batman patrolling the streets. Nor did he think the guy would be carrying a loaded gun and shoot and kill him.
It all comes down to the lethality of guns. Speaking from a Canadian perspective, you can't just shoot and kill an unarmed person in a fight. I really doubt a 17 year old kid scared and paranoid wanted to end Zimmermans life as opposed to try and find out what he was doing no?
It all comes down to the lethality of guns. Speaking from a Canadian perspective, you can't just shoot and kill an unarmed person in a fight. I really doubt a 17 year old kid scared and paranoid wanted to end Zimmermans life as opposed to try and find out what he was doing no?
not psycho
Member
Those are not the same at all, and they are not both a "literal truth."
There is no debate on the fact that Martin had no gun while he walked home, and Zimmerman did have a gun (in violation of watch guidelines) while he followed Martin (against police advice). That is all accepted by both sides. It is "spin" in the sense that it emphasizes one particular fact, but it is not a statement that might be wrong.
There is much debate on the "bashing." Was Zimmerman hit hard enough to really call it "bashing"? Do his injuries support the idea that he was being severely beaten? Was Martin actually shot while hitting Zimmerman, or could he have been shot after that (meaning that the punches could be irrelevant)? It isn't just "spin", it is a factual statement that may be wrong.
Part of the frustration over this case is the Florida laws themselves. I want the truth to come out, but the law makes it much less likely. If the bar for self defense was higher, and Zimmerman had to explain his actions more and provide more evidence, maybe we would find something out. Everything he and his family have said feels off to me. Like Martin falling and saying "you got me", Zimmerman ending up on top of Martin holding him down. If he had to explain himself in court, some truth might emerge. But he doesn't.
Thanks. So. Zimmerman:
- Wannabe cop Dwight Shrute style
- Self-appointed neighborhood watch captain
- Previously charged with assaulting a police officer
- Restraining order by ex-wife due to alleged domestic violence
- Was the one in pursuit of Martin (offensive)
- Took MMA lessons - "training intensely" in the weeks prior to Martin killing
Martin:
- Regular teenage boy who has in the past sometimes tried to appear "hard" as many teenage boys tend to do
- Has zero prior incidents or tendencies of violence
HMMMMMMMMMMM...
Pretty much...
Let's just take your final claim in isolation for a second, using a hypothetical, without loading it with some of this case's facts and emotion.
You have a gun. A guy starts mugging you. He's beating you into the ground. He's completely overpowering you to the point you can't do anything. You don't know that he's going to kill you, but you know you're not just going to lose you wallet, you're currently being maimed. You are claiming that you are guilty of murder for using your gun to defend yourself? That, being less powerful, your legal obligation is to take the beating?
These are obviously not quite the facts of the current case, but this is the result of only being able to use a gun to defend yourself if you truly believe he's going to kill you. I don't think most people would subscribe to that. And neither does the law. Once again, I'm not using this hypothetical to justify Zimmerman. I'm using this hypothetical to show the implications of your reasoning.
Zimmerman (S) also lied to court, over his bail money. He and his wife used secret codes while discussing finances on monitored lines. She's been charged with perjury iirc...
But man, this trial is going to let him free. Based on the performances of the prosecution, they dropped the ball entirely.
This is why it baffles me, why people are going to bat for him. But then I remember the Facebook Trayvon page celebrating his death, and posing his body next to KFC and fried chicken accessories. People have a reason to cast Trayvon as anything but an unarmed teenager who was shot to death by a man who had every chance to avoid killing a kid to death. Our country has a long way to go when it comes to stigma's around minorities.
He was shot, and people are trying to dig into his past, or figure out what he did to bring it on himself.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That's different though. A crime is taking place in your situation. If Martin threatened Zimmerman with death and appeared to have a weapon sure.
But when you have a 17 year old kid, unarmed, wondering what your problem is or why you're following him, it kind of goes out the window no?
I try and put myself in Trayvon's shoes. If I'm walking home, I see some white guy/white looking guy in a pickup following me and tailing me. And I'm scared and paranoid. When I get home and feel a bit safe that I can run away if needed and I see him following me on foot. I'm going to accost him and wonder what's up, maybe I'll be angry. Maybe fists start flying. Is it alright to shoot me to death?
according to his logic, yep. A lot of people feel this way frankly. You can read pages and pages of it in the old thread, or this thread. Its because they can't see themselves in trayvons shoes, for obvious reasons. Lack of experience with societal harassment of your culture. I've been through what lead to trayvons death, along with many other people. People suspect minorities are out of place, and go to investigate. It's clear when they don't bother with Josh or Skylar. Listen to zimmermans account of a kid with no drugs in his system, no behavioral problems, and armed with a drink and some sweets. "Something is wrong with him, he looks like hes on drugs." Based on absolutely nothing outside of the fact he saw a black kid, in a hoodie, in the rain, talking on the phone, running away from him.
Its unfortunate the law doesn't offer any solace to unarmed citizens who are shot for fighting strange people stalking them. If anyone had a child that was killed like this, I have a feeling we would all pull back on trying to smear this kid. But, again, not a lot of people can empathize with violent gun deaths, as it just isn't part of their world. Shooting is for defense, and clearly Trayvon was doing something wrong and that required his execution.
I'm fine with people being jailed for having a gun, following people, making someone uncomfortable, getting into a fight, not following their neighborhood watch guidelines, and killing unarmed people.
I don't see that being abused, i don't think its a slippery slope.
I know about this case already. Trevor Dooley went to prison.
If you put someone in fear for their life, yes. Once you initiate physical violence of any type on someone, you lose the moral and legal high ground IMO.
That's the tragedy of this whole situation, that Martin likely was good kid who just did something impulsive because a strange guy spooked him. I remember how impulsive I was at that age, and even though I was more or less a pacifist(being 6' tall and 130 lbs probably didn't help much
) I could see myself doing something similar in the same situation.This is not some Zimmerman = cold blooded murderer vs. Martin = innocent angel of a kid who would never hurt anyone. It's possible for Zimmerman to be a douchebag wannabe mallcop who genuinely feared for his life and Martin to be an impulsive teenager who got frustrated and angry that a strange dude was following him and hassling him.
That's the sad thing.
Xenon
Member
Well, thats good. I hope we get the same for this case, manslaughter that is.
If you put someone in fear for their life, yes. Once you initiate physical violence of any type on someone, you lose the moral high ground IMO.
That's the tragedy of this whole situation, that Martin likely was good kid who just did something impulsive because a strange guy spooked him. I remember how impulsive I was at that age, and even though I was more or less a pacifist(being 6' tall and 130 lbs probably didn't help much
This is not some Zimmerman = cold blooded murderer vs. Martin = innocent angel of a kid who would never hurt anyone. It's possible for Zimmerman to be a douchebag wannabe mallcop who genuinely feared for his life and Martin to be an impulsive teenager who got frustrated and angry that a strange dude was following him and hassling him.
That's the sad thing.
I think we all know that its most likely Zimmerman accidentally killed Martin, in the heat of the fight that he started, by constantly following someone and not identifying himself. Which he said he didn't do, because trayvon jungle-jumped out of the bushes behind him, and he was scared. -- when the police asked him.
Impulsive teenager or not, he wasn't armed. He wasn't following zimmerman, he wasn't calling the police on zimmerman, he wasn't saying "these assholes always get away." he wasn't ignoring the 911 operator when she said she didn't need to follow him, the list goes on and on. None of trayvons actions, imo, matter when it comes to this. The law dictates this to be decided on other grounds, which is the law. But I think its really dishonest when people try to factor in trayvons actions here, as if it really had a significant impact on his death, rather than the 100's of zimmerman choices.
If you put someone in fear for their life, yes. Once you initiate physical violence of any type on someone, you lose the moral and legal high ground IMO.
That's the tragedy of this whole situation, that Martin likely was good kid who just did something impulsive because a strange guy spooked him. I remember how impulsive I was at that age, and even though I was more or less a pacifist(being 6' tall and 130 lbs probably didn't help much
This is not some Zimmerman = cold blooded murderer vs. Martin = innocent angel of a kid who would never hurt anyone. It's possible for Zimmerman to be a douchebag wannabe mallcop who genuinely feared for his life and Martin to be an impulsive teenager who got frustrated and angry that a strange dude was following him and hassling him.
That's the sad thing.
Valid point but I think they both feared for their lives and one actually was more justified in that fear than the other, being dead and all.
I think Zimmerman has to answer to his conduct leading up to and during Trayvons death and self-defense should not excuse it all.
/shrug
edit; commedieu articulates it far better than I.
Mackenzie 92
Member
What is the evidence that everyone here is talking about Martin beating up Zimmerman? Is it just the same head wound? Could have just fell and hit his head in a struggle that ensued from Zimmerman trying to unlawfully detain Martin. Or is there evidence that Martin confronted him first?
faceless007
Member
You've changed the hypothetical situation to a much more dangerous one. Here's the difference: If a guy comes up to you and punches you unprovoked, then does nothing else, do you still think he deserves to die? I would say no. In one situation you have a mortal fear for your life; in the other you don't, because he is not continually attacking you. Which is why I didn't say that a person being viciously beaten has no right to self defense--I said that throwing the first punch does not automatically justify killing the puncher. It depends on the circumstances of how the fight escalated. So if Martin continued to attack Zimmerman viciously and demonstrated an intent to kill or seriously harm (though I have my doubts a ~140 lb. unarmed kid would actually do that), that would be different than if he tried to, for example, strike Zimmerman to startle him momentarily and then flee towards his home.
Xenon
Member
Sorry but you are wrong. Maybe if Trayvon was younger you would have a point. But being creeped out by out by someone following you does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
Mackenzie 92
Member
If you put someone in fear for their life, yes. Once you initiate physical violence of any type on someone, you lose the moral and legal high ground IMO.
That's the tragedy of this whole situation, that Martin likely was good kid who just did something impulsive because a strange guy spooked him. I remember how impulsive I was at that age, and even though I was more or less a pacifist(being 6' tall and 130 lbs probably didn't help much
This is not some Zimmerman = cold blooded murderer vs. Martin = innocent angel of a kid who would never hurt anyone. It's possible for Zimmerman to be a douchebag wannabe mallcop who genuinely feared for his life and Martin to be an impulsive teenager who got frustrated and angry that a strange dude was following him and hassling him.
That's the sad thing.
But that's the thing. Martin was just a kid buying Skittles and walking home. He was in fear for his life with some old white looking guy following him at night in rain in a pickup truck. Once he decides to run, he sees Zimmerman park and get out and start to follow him.
Initiation of violence isn't a zero sum game that ends with lethal force or death. I think it comes back to the notion that violence is never justified, and yet we are human, we have impulses and instincts. We don't know what was said or why. What if when Martin or Zimmerman met each other, Zimmerman said something that made Trayvon angry. 'What are you doing out here, boy!'
I'm just so glad I live in Canada, and that we don't have a culture where guns are used to solve problems. Believe me, I'd rather get my ass kicked than kill another person, especially for a situation I initiated and especially someone who was just a kid.
There was a story here, about a man from Michigan who was hiking in Calgary with his wife. Apparently two guys either drunk or whatever, approached him and asked him if he'd been to the Stampede yet. They asked him twice and then left.
He wrote into the Calgary newspaper chastising Canada for not allowing him to bring his guns across the border and that he was in fear of his life or that of his wife during that moment. It turned out the two guys were most likely promoters just telling tourists about the upcoming Calgary Stampede.
Now it's a different scenario obviously, but imagine he had his guns with him. He said he was in fear of his life. Maybe he shoots and kills both. But because he didn't have his guns, everyone went home alive that night.
If Zimmerman had listened to police, Trayvon would be alive. But no, he wanted to stop these "people who always get away".
the truth is that of two perspectives:
1. A man noticed a teenager walking along the side of the road and assumed he was a burglar that had been causing issues in his gated community. He brings his gun with him and follows the teen around in his car. The man sees that the teen notices him and moves away from the road to try and get away from the man. The man parks his car and continues his pursuit. The man ends up in a fight with the teen and kills the teen with a single gunshot.
Perspective 2:
A teenager is walking along the side of the road after picking up some skittles and iced tea at the convenience store for his step-brother. He realizes a stranger is following him in a car. The teenager moves away from the road to get away from the man, but the man parks his car and continues his pursuit. The teen ends up in a fight with his unknown assailant and is killed via gunshot to the chest.
Now if perspective 2 is not that of a victim of criminal assault and homicide, we're in the fucking wild west where whoever survives is morally and legally in the right, and the other person is, well, dead. And I'd like to think my country is better than that.
polyh3dron
Banned
So if I have a fear for my life because I'm in a bad neighborhood in Florida and see a bunch of thuggish looking individuals, I can bust out my legally owned AR15 that I happen to have with me, and approach them and kill every one of them since they're trying to defend themselves and get off scot free.
Deified Data
Banned
If you told me months ago that when this went to trial it would look for all intents and purposes that Zimmerman would get off scott-free I'd have laughed in your face.
There is no real evidence either way about who confronted who first, all we have is Zimmerman's side. There is plenty of evidence of Martin beating Zimmerman though, you don't just fall down break your nose and bust your head open. The eye witness accounts after the fight started are all over the place as to who was 'winning', but the physical evidence seems to side with the ones that said Martin was on top from my non expert POV.
That is not a strong enough case to convict someone of murder.
Sorry but you are wrong. Being suspicious of someone does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
Without trying to take away what you're trying to say, rewording it slightly pretty much makes the oppositions point.
uhuh.
polyh3dron
Banned
These assholes always get away so I'm going to go after him with my gun and... do what exactly?
So if I have a fear for my life because I'm in a bad neighborhood in Florida and see a bunch of thuggish looking individuals, I can bust out my legally owned AR15 that I happen to have with me, and approach them and kill every one of them since they're trying to defend themselves and get off scot free.
That would obviously not pass the reasonableness test, and is completely irrelevant to the facts in this case.
polyh3dron
Banned
Zimmerman's situation doesn't pass the "reasonableness test" either in my opinion.
- Status