Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:18 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,901
The Moderator Speaks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
(and piss off, Shodan
That'll earn you a warning, Babale. Please don't do this again.
  #152  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:20 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Martin was 17. He may not have legally been an adult, but he's not what I would call a child (unless I was trying to make an emotional appeal because the facts didn't support my argument).
So you're still not answering my question. Figures.
  #153  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:21 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman in cold blood, which you have no evidence for ...
What are you talking about? There's lots of evidence of that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There's Zimmerman's bloody face and head. There were reportedly abrasions on Martin's knuckles. There's a witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, as well as the grass stains on Martin's knees and Zimmerman's back.
  #154  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:23 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What are you talking about? There's lots of evidence of that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There's Zimmerman's bloody face and head. There were reportedly abrasions on Martin's knuckles. There's a witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, as well as the grass stains on Martin's knees and Zimmerman's back.
No, that's evidence that Martin and Zimmerman had an altercation, and at least at one point, Martin was winning. That's like me arguing that there's lots of evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin -- the bullet hole in Martin's body, for one.

Are you going to address Zimmerman's history of violence, as multiple posters have asked you repeatedly?
  #155  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:26 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
That'll earn you a warning, Babale. Please don't do this again.
Understood.
  #156  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
So you're still not answering my question. Figures.
Which question? About Martin's history? I think it unlikely that his encounter with Zimmerman was the first time Martin had ever thrown a punch, but even if it was, "this is the first time we have a record of that he ever beat the shit out of someone" does not mean he gets a pass for it. He was still on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head on the concrete, when he was shot. That makes the shooting justified.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 12:26 PM.
  #157  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:28 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. Morally, the one who initiates violence is at fault.
Is that always true?

For instance, in the Positive Gun News thread, there is a recent story of a woman who killed an escaped inmate. Can you tell me what violence he initiated on her before she killed him?

Or is it possible that the threat of violence is enough to justify violence?

Quote:
The evidence suggests that was likely Martin.
With the primary evidence being the testimony of the only person to survive the encounter, the evidence can suggest that to someone who is looking to blame the dead kid for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  #158  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
No, that's evidence that Martin and Zimmerman had an altercation...
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman ever threw a punch in this "altercation"?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 12:30 PM.
  #159  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:36 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which question? About Martin's history? I think it unlikely that his encounter with Zimmerman was the first time Martin had ever thrown a punch, but even if it was, "this is the first time we have a record of that he ever beat the shit out of someone" does not mean he gets a pass for it. He was still on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head on the concrete, when he was shot. That makes the shooting justified.
No, the question about Zimmerman's long and varied history of violence, including gun-related violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman ever threw a punch in this "altercation"?
No, because he brought a gun to a fistfight. Much more effective, and as a bonus, makes sure we never get to hear the other side of the story.
  #160  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Is that always true? ...
No, there are probably numerous exceptions / caveats to that general principle.
  #161  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:40 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
No, the question about Zimmerman's long and varied history of violence, including gun-related violence. ...
AFAICT, that history consists of shooting Martin in self-defense and later having two girlfriends accuse him of violence and then recant. Is that the "long and varied history of violence" we are to discuss?
  #162  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:45 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Let me just remind everyone what you guys are arguing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
AFAICT, that history consists of shooting Martin in self-defense and later having two girlfriends accuse him of violence and then recant. Is that the "long and varied history of violence" we are to discuss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
He was looking for a fight. Martin thought of himself as a bad-ass. Remember the whole "NO LIMIT NIGGA" thing?

He had been kicked out of school for drugs and theft and vandalism, his mother couldn't handle him, so she sent him to his father to see if his father could do any better.

Martin thought he was a tough guy. Maybe he was. Few people, however, are tougher than a bullet.

You fuck with enough people, sooner or later you find you fucked with the wrong people. He was only 17, so this was sooner.

Regards,
Shodan
So, people accuse Zimmerman of threatening them with guns, but that's no evidence that he may have done so to Martin. And yet, Martin is suspended because of possession of marijuana, and therefore he is a violent thug who most likely assaulted Zimmerman for no reason.

And your opinion of Zimmerman and Martin has nothing to do with the race of either individual.

The only appropriate response does not belong in this thread.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...0#post21362950

Last edited by Babale; 12-06-2018 at 12:46 PM.
  #163  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... And yet, Martin is suspended because of possession of marijuana, and therefore he is a violent thug who most likely assaulted Zimmerman for no reason. ...
No, Martin is a violent thug for smashing Zimmerman's face with his fist, climbing on top of him, and bashing his head into the concrete. That's pretty much the very definition of "violent thug", irrespective of his drug use or other petty crimes.

If we had some evidence that those actions were in response to an "imminent use of unlawful force", I'd probably feel differently, but we don't, so I don't.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 01:07 PM.
  #164  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:06 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, Martin is a violent thug for smashing Zimmerman's face with his fist, climbing on top of him, and bashing his head into the concrete. That's pretty much the very definition of "violent thug", irrespective of his drug use.

If we had some evidence that those actions were in response to an "imminent use of unlawful force", I'd probably feel differently, but we don't, so I don't.
Zimmerman is a violent thug for following, shooting, and killing Trayvon Martin. That's pretty much the definition of "violent thug", irrespective of his history of engaging in other violent thug-like assaults. It's also pretty much the definition of "murderer", even if the only witness is dead so he got away with it.

Last edited by Babale; 12-06-2018 at 01:08 PM.
  #165  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:12 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Zimmerman is a violent thug for following, shooting, and killing Trayvon Martin. That's pretty much the definition of "violent thug", irrespective of his history of engaging in other violent thug-like assaults. It's also pretty much the definition of "murderer", even if the only witness is dead so he got away with it.
But in Zimmerman's case, we actually do have some evidence that his actions (well, the shooting at least) were in response to Martin's "imminent use of unlawful force". In fact, we had a trial, and a jury examined the evidence in detail, and that's the conclusion they reached. That's the difference. That's why he's not a "murderer".

You may find him morally repugnant for defending himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 01:12 PM.
  #166  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:13 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
What "potential crime" did Zimmerman think Martin was going to commit when he first saw him? What suspicious behavior was Martin exhibiting that justified Zimmerman in following him?

Why is it that you think Martin was acting in a suspicious manner by just walking down a public street but you don't think Zimmerman was acting in a suspicious manner by following Martin to his home?
As I recall the case, there had been a number of breakins in that area- where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain- by young, tall men wearing dark hoodies. I think they were also African American, but I haven't checked in awhile. Martin also had veered from the well-lit foot path.

Recalling that it was dark (hiding Martin's youth) and that they were unknown to each other, why is it unreasonable for a watch captain to have concern even if not officially on-duty or patrol or whatever he was?

Yes, it was suspicious of Zimmerman to follow from Martin's POV. That doesn't mean that Martin had a right to initiate a physical confrontation.

Zimmerman has a specific concern. Martin has a general concern. Neither party is in the wrong to be suspicious, though.

This didn't occur in a vacuum, don't be disingenuous by artificially restricting the context.

Zimmerman was reckless to pursue- not legally wrong, but unwise. Martin was unwise to use physical violence on a man who had a concealed carry- and there's two interpretations on that:

1) He saw the gun and felt threatened, this requires Zimmerman to not use it and allow himself to be beaten up, and potentially requires Martin to approach a man he'd successfully avoided that he was already afraid of?
2) He did not see the gun and saw someone he could be reasonably certain he could essentially just beat up

Considering that he did have delinquency issues (he was with his father due to discipline issues), and there is a history that can be seen as glorifying either the use of physical force or violence- I seem to recall he was involved in some kind of wannabe MMA group?- the second proposition seems more likely (which does not make it incontrovertibly correct). Add to that that I myself am male and was once 17, and had unpleasant separations from a girlfriend I was angry about, and yeah, testosterone's a hell of an aggression enhancer. Seems more plausible to me.

Now, that's plausibility. The fact that there is ambivalency is precisely why it went to a damned trial.

Also, calling him a child is disingenuous- a 12 year old (like the pictures initially released in a manipulating manner) would have been a child. He was man-sized and man-strong in the dark. We don't expect 17 year olds to make all adult decisions- but we let them serve in the military and hold-jobs. That's at best a half-child, half-adult. Emphasizing "child" is an attempt at character assassination or argument invalidation by innuendo, and is frankly a sleazy tactic.
  #167  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:19 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But in Zimmerman's case, we actually do have some evidence that his actions (well, the shooting at least) were in response to Martin's "imminent use of unlawful force". In fact, we had a trial, and a jury examined the evidence in detail, and that's the conclusion they reached. That's the difference. That's why he's not a "murderer".

You may find him morally repugnant for defending himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.
He handled the lead-up in a stupid manner, regardless of whether once in the situation he was justified.

I agree, not a first-degree murderer. I would've been happy with 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter (unintentional death resulting from negligence, there's absolutely nothing saying Zimmerman was out "looking for a kill") for his part in the unnecessary confrontation.

But yeah, once he was on his back having his head slammed into the ground by someone in a superior position, utilizing a firearm is the definition of self-defense. It's whether the proceeding actions necessitated the confrontation in the first place. Since you need a torturous narrative with a lot of presuppositions and speculation to create one, whereas you have a quite plausible case of a young man who was angry doing something stupid and aggressive that requires no additional narrative, it seems the more likely case.
  #168  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:21 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
But in Zimmerman's case, we actually do have some evidence that his actions (well, the shooting at least) were in response to Martin's "imminent use of unlawful force". In fact, we had a trial, and a jury examined the evidence in detail, and that's the conclusion they reached. That's the difference. That's why he's not a "murderer".

You may find him morally repugnant for defending himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.
You still haven't made a convincing argument as to why Martin would attack Zimmerman unprovoked. Actually, you haven't made an argument at all, because apparently if you DID I would find it "disgusting". Until you make such an argument, I'm not buying the idea that Martin randomly attacked Zimmerman, considering Zimmerman's troubling history of gun related violence and his reckless behavior in this case.

So no, I don't believe Zimmerman was "defending himself".
  #169  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:25 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
He refuses to make such an argument. Perhaps because there isn't one to be made?
  #170  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:26 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
He handled the lead-up in a stupid manner, regardless of whether once in the situation he was justified.

I agree, not a first-degree murderer. I would've been happy with 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter (unintentional death resulting from negligence, there's absolutely nothing saying Zimmerman was out "looking for a kill") for his part in the unnecessary confrontation.

But yeah, once he was on his back having his head slammed into the ground by someone in a superior position, utilizing a firearm is the definition of self-defense. It's whether the proceeding actions necessitated the confrontation in the first place. Since you need a torturous narrative with a lot of presuppositions and speculation to create one, whereas you have a quite plausible case of a young man who was angry doing something stupid and aggressive that requires no additional narrative, it seems the more likely case.
Zimmerman didn't identify himself. If he had walked up to Martin and said, "hey, I'm with the neighborhood watch, there have been some robberies recently, what are you doing out here?" That would have been one thing. Instead, he approached Martin and demanded to know what he was doing, with no explanation. He also didn't respond to Martin asking why he was being followed. If Zimmerman had said, "I'm following you because we had some break ins in the area. Do you know anything about that?" Then death could have been avoided.

If an armed man walked up to me and demanded to know what I was "doing here", with no explanation, I too would feel very threatened, and I'm not even black.
  #171  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:34 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Then death could have been avoided. ...
There were lots of points at which a different decision by either party would have resulted in a non-fatal outcome (just like in the other story from the OP). That doesn't transform the justified self-defense shooting into something unjustified.
  #172  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:40 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There were lots of points at which a different decision by either party would have resulted in a non-fatal outcome (just like in the other story from the OP). That doesn't transform the justified self-defense shooting into something unjustified.
Not legally, no.
  #173  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:42 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Zimmerman didn't identify himself. If he had walked up to Martin and said, "hey, I'm with the neighborhood watch, there have been some robberies recently, what are you doing out here?" That would have been one thing. Instead, he approached Martin and demanded to know what he was doing, with no explanation. He also didn't respond to Martin asking why he was being followed. If Zimmerman had said, "I'm following you because we had some break ins in the area. Do you know anything about that?" Then death could have been avoided.

If an armed man walked up to me and demanded to know what I was "doing here", with no explanation, I too would feel very threatened, and I'm not even black.
If you knew he was armed, which is questionable because it was a concealed carry and Martin felt safe punching him. I rather think he didn't see the gun or he would have been more cautious.

There also wasn't a lot of time allowance for either to answer the other's questions. I agree, Zimmerman <I>should have led off with identification as a neighborhood watch member</I>, but not doing so doesn't justify physical assault.

Martin wasn't wrong to feel he was being followed, but initiating violence is reckless. It should not have killed him, but he died over it, because once he was using potentially lethal force (head injuries are exactly this) Zimmerman was legally entitled to respond with a weapon if he had one- which he did.
  #174  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:48 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
If you knew he was armed, which is questionable because it was a concealed carry and Martin felt safe punching him. I rather think he didn't see the gun or he would have been more cautious.

There also wasn't a lot of time allowance for either to answer the other's questions. I agree, Zimmerman <I>should have led off with identification as a neighborhood watch member</I>, but not doing so doesn't justify physical assault.

Martin wasn't wrong to feel he was being followed, but initiating violence is reckless. It should not have killed him, but he died over it, because once he was using potentially lethal force (head injuries are exactly this) Zimmerman was legally entitled to respond with a weapon if he had one- which he did.
You're assuming that Zimmerman, the same guy who threatened his ex wife, currently estranged wife, girlfriend, and random driver with his weapon. This whole scenario flips on it's head if Zimmerman threatened Martin, too, and while there is no evidence one way or the other (certainly not so much evidence that youh could convict Zimmerman without reasonable doubt), I still have not heard a single convincing argument as to why Martin would assault Zimmerman unless such a threat DID occur. The only person who made an argument was Shodan, and his argument was that we know Martin is violent because he is a "No Limit Nigga". You can read my Pit thread to see why I reject that argument. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why Martin, with no histoiry of violence, would do such a thing?
  #175  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You still haven't made a convincing argument as to why Martin would attack Zimmerman unprovoked. ...
I don't feel the need to make "a convincing argument as to why". I don't care nearly as much why he attacked Zimmerman as that he did. You seem to think his motive is the make-or-break point here. It's largely irrelevant in my eyes. Unless there's some evidence that he did so in response to an imminent threat (and there's not) then it was unjustified.
  #176  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:54 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't feel the need to make "a convincing argument as to why". I don't care nearly as much why he attacked Zimmerman as that he did. You seem to think his motive is the make-or-break point here. It's largely irrelevant in my eyes. Unless there's some evidence that he did so in response to an imminent threat (and there's not) then it was unjustified.
Because those of us who aren't coming into this under the presumption that Martin was guilty see that Zimmerman's story (and your story) is full of holes. The biggest hole is the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.

But fine, let's go at it your way. Zimmerman's motive is unknown, but doesn't matter. The end result isn't WHY he killed Trayvon, it's that he did.

See? Not nearly as nice. "But there's evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense!" You cry. Fine, you're right, but there's also evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman in self defense. Namely, the stalking, the presence of Zimmerman's firearm, the historical context in which a black man being stopped and questiokned by an armed white man is occurring. Martin had every right to fear for his life, and he acted in self defense.
  #177  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:56 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I don't even know how to respond to this.
(post shortened)

I'm not surprised.
  #178  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:57 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Not legally, no.
If you want to focus on the morality of it, the moral of this story is "don't punch people in the face and bash their head into concrete. It might get you killed (and your killer off scot-free)"

Another moral of the story could be "don't follow suspicious people. It could get you into a heap of trouble and cause major repercussions throughout the rest of your life (nutjob trying to murder you, scrutiny of your past and future decisions, etc) even if you are fortunate enough to survive.
  #179  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:02 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You're assuming that Zimmerman, the same guy who threatened his ex wife, currently estranged wife, girlfriend, and random driver with his weapon. This whole scenario flips on it's head if Zimmerman threatened Martin, too, and while there is no evidence one way or the other (certainly not so much evidence that youh could convict Zimmerman without reasonable doubt), I still have not heard a single convincing argument as to why Martin would assault Zimmerman unless such a threat DID occur. The only person who made an argument was Shodan, and his argument was that we know Martin is violent because he is a "No Limit Nigga". You can read my Pit thread to see why I reject that argument. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why Martin, with no histoiry of violence, would do such a thing?
I'm going to violate Godwin's law, and point out that some people didn't believe in the Holocaust because it hadn't happened before.

Zimmerman has no physical evidence of initiating violence (ie, evidence of punching). Martin does.

There's no need for a narrative as to why Martin did. If no-one ever did anything they hadn't done before, no-one would ever learn to even walk or talk.

There are two scenarios by your post for how Zimmerman could have threatened him:

1) Drawing and showing him the gun. This requires Zimmerman to allow himself to be beaten and potentially permanently injured (brain damage is no joke) before shooting Martin, and Martin to disregard the gun in his hand in favor of bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground, potentially life threatening attack. This . .more than stretches credulity to believe. It's possible, but if so it was extremely stupid, and requires you to believe Martin was extremely stupid.
2) Showing him the holstered weapon. This requires Martin to recognize a holstered concealed carry (not impossible) and decide the correct response to seeing a man was armed in a state with concealed carry laws that he (Martin) had lived in his entire life was not to engage in conversation, but engage in violence, and not only violence, but again violence that put Zimmerman in danger of death or permanent brain damage. Without the gun being drawn, mind, which means Martin was not in imminent danger (which I think the law requires to justify such use of lethal force)?

Can you not see how neither of those scenarios helps your case that Martin was in the right to initiate violence?
  #180  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Because those of us who aren't coming into this under the presumption that Martin was guilty see that Zimmerman's story (and your story) is full of holes. The biggest hole is the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.

But fine, let's go at it your way. Zimmerman's motive is unknown, but doesn't matter. The end result isn't WHY he killed Trayvon, it's that he did.

See? Not nearly as nice. "But there's evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense!" You cry. Fine, you're right, but there's also evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman in self defense. Namely, the stalking, the presence of Zimmerman's firearm, the historical context in which a black man being stopped and questiokned by an armed white man is occurring. Martin had every right to fear for his life, and he acted in self defense.
"the historical context" does not give rise to a reasonable belief that he was facing an imminent use of unlawful force. It's doubtful that Martin was even aware that Zimmerman was armed prior to punching him in the face. So what are we left with? That Zimmerman followed Martin? That's legal and doesn't justify violence.

And Zimmerman's motive is not "unknown". The bloody evidence was all over his head. That was his "motive".
  #181  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:06 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Because those of us who aren't coming into this under the presumption that Martin was guilty see that Zimmerman's story (and your story) is full of holes. The biggest hole is the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.

But fine, let's go at it your way. Zimmerman's motive is unknown, but doesn't matter. The end result isn't WHY he killed Trayvon, it's that he did.

See? Not nearly as nice. "But there's evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense!" You cry. Fine, you're right, but there's also evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman in self defense. Namely, the stalking, the presence of Zimmerman's firearm, the historical context in which a black man being stopped and questiokned by an armed white man is occurring. Martin had every right to fear for his life, and he acted in self defense.
And in this case we refer to the law to see what society has determined is the person with the right to use violence, and it was referred to a trial where it was determined Zimmerman did. Sounds like we don't disagree, no does Ditka.

Now, should we talk about whether these laws are the correct moral laws or whether this was a stupid unavoidable tragedy and things like education ("Kids, Florida is a concealed carry state and anyone you get in a fight with might be armed, discretion is the better part of valor) and the neighborhood watch guidelines ("You must immediately identify yourself before any use of violence as a watch member or be unable to exercise the Stand Your Ground defense") is a better means of preventing future tragedies?
  #182  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:09 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
I'm going to violate Godwin's law, and point out that some people didn't believe in the Holocaust because it hadn't happened before.

Zimmerman has no physical evidence of initiating violence (ie, evidence of punching). Martin does.

There's no need for a narrative as to why Martin did. If no-one ever did anything they hadn't done before, no-one would ever learn to even walk or talk.

There are two scenarios by your post for how Zimmerman could have threatened him:

1) Drawing and showing him the gun. This requires Zimmerman to allow himself to be beaten and potentially permanently injured (brain damage is no joke) before shooting Martin, and Martin to disregard the gun in his hand in favor of bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground, potentially life threatening attack. This . .more than stretches credulity to believe. It's possible, but if so it was extremely stupid, and requires you to believe Martin was extremely stupid.
2) Showing him the holstered weapon. This requires Martin to recognize a holstered concealed carry (not impossible) and decide the correct response to seeing a man was armed in a state with concealed carry laws that he (Martin) had lived in his entire life was not to engage in conversation, but engage in violence, and not only violence, but again violence that put Zimmerman in danger of death or permanent brain damage. Without the gun being drawn, mind, which means Martin was not in imminent danger (which I think the law requires to justify such use of lethal force)?

Can you not see how neither of those scenarios helps your case that Martin was in the right to initiate violence?
I'm going to quote myself for the third option:

3) Zimmerman shoved or otherwise initiated a physical altercation with Martin, expecting Martin to punch him back, giving him and excuse to draw the gun Martin didn't know he had and shoot Martin while claiming he was in imminent fear for his life.

Nothing about Zimmerman has shown that level of cunning or preplanning- it takes a lot of malice, it would require him deciding to kill Martin before anything happened- and we have no testimony to that effect.
  #183  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:11 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,693
It doesn't matter why Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Martin is not accused of anything. All that matters is that he did, based on all the available evidence. The majority of that evidence is from the girl Martin was on the phone to as the altercation happened, which was presented at the trial.
  #184  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:21 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's sad, but not surprising, to continue to see so many Dopers perfectly willing to shit all over a dead child based on assumptions (i.e. that he followed and attacked Zimmerman out of the blue) that we couldn't possibly know with any accuracy better than a guess.
There is Martin's friend Dee Dee's testimony. If you consider that to be reliable?

Martin's friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy", watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.[129] She also testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" and "nigga" during their telephone conversation.[138][139]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Trayvon_Martin


'Cracker' conveys history of bigotry that still resonates

Complicating the matter further: Despite suspicions among many case watchers that Zimmerman followed Martin largely because he was African-American, the only mention of race from the defendant in his call to the police that night about a "suspicious guy" came when he was questioned. "This guy," the dispatcher asks, "is he white, black, or Hispanic?" Zimmerman responds, "He looks black."

All of this may seem pointless to people who focus on the central fact of this case: No matter how the conflict began, police say it ended with an armed man killing an unarmed one. The debate over cracker may furthermore seem arcane to people who live north of the Mason-Dixon line, where cracker is seldom heard, and even when it makes an appearance, it is not freighted with decades of history. To be sure, cracker is not on par with the n-word, but it is nonetheless a sharp racial insult that resonates with white southerners even if white northerners don't get it.


https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/us/zi...-trial-cracker

Last edited by doorhinge; 12-06-2018 at 02:21 PM.
  #185  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:32 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman was also looking for a fight. He was told by the police to stay inside and not confront Martin, yet he took a weapon and followed Martin.
(post shortened)

Except Zimmerman was not told by a police officer to "stay inside and not confront Martin".

On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[41][Note 3] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[42]

At approximately 7:09 p.m.,[Note 4] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[44] Zimmerman said, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[2] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[45] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[46] He also mentioned that Martin was wearing a "dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie."[47] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[48][49]

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[50] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[51] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[52] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[50] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[53] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[50] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.
  #186  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:40 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Except Zimmerman was not told by a police officer to "stay inside and not confront Martin". ...
Yup. Thanks for addressing this point. It's one I intended to, but never got back to. AFAIK, he wasn't even speaking to a police officer, just a dispatcher, but either way, the "We don't need you to do that." "Okay." suggests compliance, not disobedience.
  #187  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:44 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Except for the part where he did it anyway.
  #188  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:00 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,693
"The police told him not to follow Martin" is another falsehood, along with "Martin was in a public place" and "Zimmerman stalked Martin".

I'm well aware that the media reported many of these things as fact, but they (probably intentionally) reported falsehoods. It's easy to read or watch what actually was said at the trial - it's been quoted in this thread! It's rather sad to see many people here who disdain those who follow Fox News or whatever unquestioningly believing reports that fit their biases, even when presented with evidence that the reports are wrong.
  #189  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:05 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Except for the part where he did it anyway.
No he didn't. Read the cite.
Quote:
Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[50] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[53] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.
Note the sequence.
  • Zimmerman follows Martin.
  • Zimmerman loses sight of Martin.
  • The NEN dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to" (follow Martin).
  • Zimmerman stops following Martin.
  • Zimmerman asks the cops to call him so they can arrange to meet.
  • Zimmerman hangs up, and goes looking for a house number or street sign so he can give a precise location.
  • Martin doubles back, confronts Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.
He didn't "do it anyway."

Regards,
Shodan
  #190  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:08 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Like the falsehood of "right by my father's house" proving that Martin was about to enter the doorway to his father's house and then turned and went back to pursue Zimmerman. When in fact the location of the incident easily could also be described as "right by my father's house"? Like that falsehood that keeps being trotted out as rock solid proof of Martin's intent to attack or that he "doubled back"?

Nobody ever seems to to acknowledge that Martin said "get off!" right before the confrontation, which is something a person would say if they were grabbed, perhaps by attempting to restrain while waiting for the police? None of the Zimmerman defenders ever acknowledge that. Probably because it's inconvenient for the narrative of the violent attacker bumrushing the poor neighborhood defender.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-shooting.html
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-06-2018 at 03:09 PM.
  #191  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:16 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Not really. You can't do a forensic check on that (too confabulated with the fight), there's no evidence it applied to a physical restraint over say a metaphorical (what does Zimmerman need to get off of? Martin? Martin's trail? His father's lawn?).

Again, though, is a full blown layout and pounding of someone's head on the ground a proportionate response? It's completely reasonable for Martin to have over-reacted as human beings especially given his age, but that literally put Zimmerman at serious risk of death or permanent disabling injury. (Don't mess with the head, guys. ) That's the immutable end of it as far as the law goes with respect to murder.

Manslaughter in the 2nd or 3rd was the correct charge.
  #192  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:19 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
People keep interpreting "right by my father's house" to mean that he was literally right in front of the door to the house when he said that to his girlfriend. The location of the shooting is also "right by" his father's house. It was only a couple hundred feet away. My parents back yard is 350 feet long. If I'm all the way in the back of the yard and a friend calls and asks where I am, I'm going to say I'm at my parents house. That doesn't mean I'm literally arm's length from the front door.

To use that statement as rock solid evidence that he turned and went back to confront Zimmerman is not reasonable. Yet to Zimmerman defenders this is absolute proof of Martin's bloodlust and intent to attack. He could have been standing right where the confrontation ended up occurring when he said that he was "right by my father's house".
350 feet is a big back yard. The homes located in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla. are nowhere near that large.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/...ed-ian-tuttle/

If things were different, things would be different. There are 12+ homes (24+ if you count both sides of the common area. With 5 homes per building and 3 buildings per side, it looks like your parents could build at least 30 similar homes in their backyard.) along the path which Martin took to and from his home to the point where he confronted Zimmerman.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...on-martin.html
  #193  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:23 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Except for the part where he did it anyway.
That must be another one of those "facts" that the news media failed to get correct. Just like the ice tea/watermelon drink error.
  #194  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:28 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
350 feet is a big back yard. The homes located in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla. are nowhere near that large.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/...ed-ian-tuttle/

If things were different, things would be different. There are 12+ homes (24+ if you count both sides of the common area. With 5 homes per building and 3 buildings per side, it looks like your parents could build at least 30 similar homes in their backyard.) along the path which Martin took to and from his home to the point where he confronted Zimmerman.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...on-martin.html
None of this counters anything I said. "Right by my father's house" does not prove anything, let alone that he doubled back to go find and attack Zimmerman. The exact spot the shooting occurred is also "right by my father's house". Your side is using that phrase as rock solid proof that Martin was all the way home then doubled back with intent to attack. That phrase proves no such thing. The differing standards of doubt you have for the two sides are stark and very telling.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #195  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:30 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Nobody ever seems to to acknowledge that Martin said "get off!" right before the confrontation, which is something a person would say if they were grabbed, perhaps by attempting to restrain while waiting for the police? None of the Zimmerman defenders ever acknowledge that. Probably because it's inconvenient for the narrative of the violent attacker bumrushing the poor neighborhood defender.
Someone said "get off", but DeeDee was unwilling to say for certain who it was. I suspect that it was the person with injuries consistent with being punched, pushed to the floor, and smashed against the ground who said it, rather than the person who's only injury was a gunshot wound.
  #196  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:33 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
The differing standards of doubt you have for the two sides are stark and very telling.
Yes, obviously all the benefit of the doubt goes to Zimmerman. His guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Martin is not accused of anything, so that doesn't apply to him.
  #197  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:33 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
Manslaughter in the 2nd or 3rd was the correct charge.
I agree that would have been a just result.

But Martin shouting "get off" at the onset of the confrontation certainly casts doubt that innocent Zimmerman was blindsided. When you say that Martin initiated the confrontation, that doesn't fit with him being the one shouting "get off!". Why else would he shout that if Zimmerman didn't touch him?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #198  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:35 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Someone said "get off", but DeeDee was unwilling to say for certain who it was. I suspect that it was the person with injuries consistent with being punched, pushed to the floor, and smashed against the ground who said it, rather than the person who's only injury was a gunshot wound.
From my cite:

"before hearing her friend shout: "Get off! Get off!", she said."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Yes, obviously all the benefit of the doubt goes to Zimmerman. His guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Martin is not accused of anything, so that doesn't apply to him.
Yes because he's dead, so that's pretty convenient for Zimmerman.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-06-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #199  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:40 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I agree that would have been a just result.

But Martin shouting "get off" at the onset of the confrontation certainly casts doubt that innocent Zimmerman was blindsided. When you say that Martin initiated the confrontation, that doesn't fit with him being the one shouting "get off!". Why else would he shout that if Zimmerman didn't touch him?
See Steophen's remark: Not clear Martin said it.

Look, I got into a fight in HS that was:

1) A guy slammed my locker on my hand in an empty hall and ran down the hall laughing and saying "Suck on that"
2) I chased him down, tackled him, held him down, and told him to never do that again.
I received detention, because I escalated it to assault and he didn't necessarily mean to "slam it that hard" (my hand was bleeding) whereas I certainly did intend to tackle him. I was 14 years old.

Slamming someone's head into the ground, or doing anything deliberately that will result in permanent injury, is frankly over the line in our society. Full stop. It's not always right- Will left me alone after that, and even apologized when he saw how hard my hand was bleeding (caught on the locking mechanism), he just thought it was funny and I assume, since we got on after that, that my response was understandable- but it was over the line.
  #200  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:41 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
From my cite:

"before hearing her friend shout: "Get off! Get off!", she said."



Yes because he's dead, so that's pretty convenient for Zimmerman.
Only relevant if you're maintaining that Zimmerman decided he had to kill him to cover something up by insinuation. Are you? Because it's pretty clear that Zimmerman wasn't just pretending to be afraid of physical damage- he was actually injured.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017