Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:59 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
How is a policeman in a dark house at the site of a known crime supposed to know whether this man is "not responding to" or "ignoring" police instructions? I'm not saying this guy should have been shot, but he was holding a gun that he wouldn't put down, and he pointed at object at a police officer. How many black men in their 20s have been killed for far less?
The bolded part presumes knowledge and intent, just like using the word "ignored" does and it prejudices the discussion. In this case, you are using "wouldn't" to mean "refused" which is false: Mr. Black never refused to put the weapon down. Do you disagree? I mean, let's make sure we're talking about the same event and that we agree on what happened, okay?
  #52  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:03 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then you need to consider the circumstantial evidence, Dee Dee's testimony (she was on the phone with Martin at the time), the transcript of the call to the NEN operator, and things like that. For instance, the mark on Martin's fist consistent with having punched someone, and Zimmerman's broken nose and blackened eyes. And the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the grass stains and moisture on Martin's knees and the back of Zimmerman's jacket.
Yes, because he FELT THREATENED by the armed man who was stalking him and now demanding to know why he was here, in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, acting suspicious in no way, aside from daring to be black. And when this armed man made these threatening remarks to Martin, he proceeded to defend himself, quite effectively. That's why he punched Zimmerman and had grass stains on his knees. Because he was defending himself. If I was being followed by an armed man, I would defend myself too.

Quote:
You shouldn't. You should look at the evidence, including statements made by Zimmerman before the shooting. The fact that, according to Dee Dee's testimony, he was out of sight of Zimmerman, right by his father's house, and could have peacefully handled it by walking in the door. Instead, Martin handled it by going back, confronting Zimmerman, and attacking him, breaking his nose, blackening his eyes, and bashing his head on the ground.

Regards,
Shodan
So now you're saying that when Zimmerman is on patrol, all the shady black kids better get indoors and hide themselves, because if they run into George "Batman" Zimmerman, First Lieutenant, Neighborhood Watch, then he can question them for their suspicious behavior?

How come no one is questioning Zimmerman for HIS suspicious behavior? I'd much rather have Trayvon Martin running up and down my street with skittles in his pocket than have Sheriff Zimmerman, Fastest Gun in the South keeping me "safe" by questioning passing black people.
  #53  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:05 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
What the hell is your theory? That Martin, a 17 year old boy with no criminal record or history of violence.....
(post shortened)

Travon Martin had a criminal record. Martin was staying with his father at his father's girlfriends home. Martin had been sent there by his mother after Martin had received another suspension, this time a 10 day suspension, from his high school.
  #54  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... You sure that the difference isn't that one of them was old and white while the other was young and black? ...
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... ironically enough, in accordance with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, he would be allowed to use deadly force to defend himself here ...
No, Trayvon would not have been justified in murdering Zimmerman for asking him what he was doing. You apparently don't understand Florida's laws.
  #55  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:07 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
There was no iced tea. The media outlets were wrong when they first published that claim, and you're wrong for repeating it.

Martin had purchased a can of Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice. It was found at the crime scene.

https://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-...photos/015.jpg
Thank you for correcting this grievous error!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, see post #32.
Prior violent behavior, since we're trying to establish his character. Those photos are from the incident in question, and we're trying to establish Trayvon Martin's state of mind when he was part of the incident that led to Zimmerman getting those injuries.

That should be obvious, but... you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The bolded part presumes knowledge and intent, just like using the word "ignored" does and it prejudices the discussion. In this case, you are using "wouldn't" to mean "refused" which is false: Mr. Black never refused to put the weapon down. Do you disagree? I mean, let's make sure we're talking about the same event and that we agree on what happened, okay?
Fine, here. Added the underlined parts.

How is a policeman in a dark house at the site of a known crime supposed to know whether this man is "not responding to" or "ignoring" police instructions? I'm not saying this guy should have been shot, but he was holding a gun that he didn't put down when police demanded he do so, and he pointed at object at a police officer. How many black men in their 20s have been killed for far less?
  #56  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:12 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Travon Martin had a criminal record. Martin was staying with his father at his father's girlfriends home. Martin had been sent there by his mother after Martin had received another suspension, this time a 10 day suspension, from his high school.
A school suspension is not a criminal record. I do grant you that Trayvon Martin did have some issues with the law, although he'd never been charged with anything AFAIK. However, there is 0 history of violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes.


No, Trayvon would not have been justified in murdering Zimmerman for asking him what he was doing. You apparently don't understand Florida's laws.
Zimmerman didn't JUST ask Trayvon what he was doing. You apparently don't understand basic social interaction. When a grown white man follows a black kid around, carrying a gun, and demands to know what the black kid is "doing" this is an implicit threat.

Last edited by Babale; 12-05-2018 at 03:13 PM.
  #57  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Zimmerman didn't JUST ask Trayvon what he was doing. You apparently don't understand basic social interaction. When a grown white man follows a black kid around, carrying a gun, and demands to know what the black kid is "doing" this is an implicit threat.
I understand that the law would not view that "implicit threat" as legal justification for deadly force in self defense. Do you understand that?
  #58  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:16 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Why would Trayvon have any reason to think that this situation could be handled peacefully? He was followed by a man with a gun, then accosted and forced to explain his presence. What the fuck is that, by the way? Why does Zimmerman have this God-given right to wander the streets of Florida, demanding that passerbys (well, black passerbys) explain their business?

.....What's your theory? That Martin was saving the skittles for a snack, but what he REALLY hungered for was Zimmerman's blood, so he circled back and hunted him down?
(post shortened)

According to Martin's non-girlfriend Dee Dee's testimony, Martin was standing by Martin's father's girlfriend's house, which was 300 feet away from Zimmerman's location. Martin referred to the person following him as a (derogatory name), and then proceed to where Zimmerman was standing. A fight ensued. Martin could have entered the house, but chose not to.
  #59  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:17 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post

So maybe my problem isn't so much with people who are condemning the shooting itself as it is with people who are condemning Mason1972's position while holding a much more abhorrent position themselves.
Well, I didnt post in that thread, but the ATMB thread on that made it clear- Mason1972 got a warning (details in both threads). It isnt so much that his position was wrong, but that he did it in the wrong thread. There's a PIT thread about stupid gun news, and if he had posted his story there, he would have gotten a totally different reaction.

Another example is posting in a thread about "Who was your favorite Friends character?" with a post about how you hated that show and a rant about how evil and stupid all the characters were. Indeed, that could be a OK opinion, but not there.
  #60  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:17 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Fine, here. Added the underlined parts.

How is a policeman in a dark house at the site of a known crime supposed to know whether this man is "not responding to" or "ignoring" police instructions?
The police should determine that, or attempt to determine that, BEFORE they shoot someone, IMO. Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I'm not saying this guy should have been shot, but he was holding a gun that he didn't put down when police demanded he do so,
Again, you're assuming knowledge on Mr. Black's part, but you've also already acknowledged that Mr. Black did not hear the officer(s). If he didn't hear them, he didn't know he was supposed to stop holding the gun. Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
and he pointed at object at a police officer.
Whoa! He did? I don't recall seeing that in any of the news stories about this. I have not watched the video (and don't intend to).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
How many black men in their 20s have been killed for far less?
Again, you seem to be offering this up as justification for this shooting, despite saying earlier "I'm not saying the guy should have been shot"; your position is ambiguous at best, but your actions keep trying to justify this shooting. Is that your intent?
  #61  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:18 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I understand that the law would not view that "implicit threat" as legal justification for deadly force in self defense. Do you understand that?
Yes, as I've said about a dozen times, we are talking about the moral right and wrong. I realize that by Florida's laws Zimmerman got off Scott free. The case has been closed for years. In my eyes, Zimmerman is still morally equivalent to a murderer.

And by the way, if Zimmerman, say, showed Trayvon his gun in a threatening manner while asking him What he was Doing, then that WOULD justify self defense, but since Zimmerman killed Trayvon I'll guess we'll never know.
  #62  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Yes, as I've said about a dozen times, we are talking about the moral right and wrong. I realize that by Florida's laws Zimmerman got off Scott free. The case has been closed for years. ...
You weren't talking about "the moral right and wrong" when you wrote this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
...ironically enough, in accordance with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, he would be allowed to use deadly force to defend himself here...
Don't bite my head off for correcting you when you make a factually-wrong legal claim.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 03:23 PM.
  #63  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:22 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,237
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".
__________________
"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
  #64  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:22 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then you need to consider the circumstantial evidence, Dee Dee's testimony (she was on the phone with Martin at the time), the transcript of the call to the NEN operator, and things like that. For instance, the mark on Martin's fist consistent with having punched someone, and Zimmerman's broken nose and blackened eyes. And the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the grass stains and moisture on Martin's knees and the back of Zimmerman's jacket.
You asked why he was defending himself, not whether he was hitting Zimmerman.
Quote:
You shouldn't. You should look at the evidence, including statements made by Zimmerman before the shooting.
What that evidence tells me is that Zim was smart enough to not divulge his racism on the recorded 9-1-1 call.

We don't know, and will never know, why Martin went back.
  #65  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:23 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Thank you for correcting this grievous error!
(post shortened)

Facts are facts.

If the media couldn't/wouldn't provide the facts, or the whole truth, it makes one wonder what other facts they couldn't/wouldn't provide the public. Were they simply reporting a story incorrectly, or were they stoking the flames in order to boost advertising revenue?

Last edited by doorhinge; 12-05-2018 at 03:23 PM.
  #66  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:26 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

Facts are facts.

If the media couldn't/wouldn't provide the facts, or the whole truth, it makes one wonder what other facts they couldn't/wouldn't provide the public. Were they simply reporting a story incorrectly, or were they stoking the flames in order to boost advertising revenue?
What a load. Arizona is a brand most readily associated with bottled iced tea. They apparently also make fruit beverages without tea. The idea that reporting "a bottle of Arizona brand iced tea" instead of "a bottle of Arizona brand fruit juice" serves some nefarious greedy media narrative is just fucking asinine.
  #67  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:28 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The fact that, according to Dee Dee's testimony, he was out of sight of Zimmerman, right by his father's house, and could have peacefully handled it by walking in the door.
Do you feel people should have a legal obligation to walk away from a potential crime if they are able to do so? Or should they legally be allowed to stand their ground if they choose to do so?

If some stranger follows you home for no apparent reason, do you just go inside and hope they go away?

Last edited by Little Nemo; 12-05-2018 at 03:30 PM.
  #68  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
What a load. Arizona is a brand most readily associated with bottled iced tea. They apparently also make fruit beverages without tea. The idea that reporting "a bottle of Arizona brand iced tea" instead of "a bottle of Arizona brand fruit juice" serves some nefarious greedy media narrative is just fucking asinine.
I remember at the time there was some discussion that reporting the flavor of the beverage would reinforce some racial stereotypes, and perhaps the media was misreporting it to avoid accusations of racism. Personally I think plain-old incompetence is the more likely explanation.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 03:30 PM.
  #69  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:29 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Do you feel people should have a legal obligation to walk away from a potential crime if they are able to do so? Or should they legally be allowed to stand their ground if they choose to do so?
What "potential crime" are you talking about here?
  #70  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:32 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,589
If the only controversy in George Zimmerman's life was the Trayvon Martin case, maybe I could buy what the Zimmerman apologists here are peddling but, unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth.

George Zimmerman's many, many controversies since the Trayvon Martin case.

Instead, his life has become a series of public controversies that seem to imply he wants the nation to remember the very reason he gained infamy in the first place or, perhaps, that he suffers, at best, from a case of impaired judgement. Now that he has the media spotlight, he hasn't let go of it, despite receiving "death threats," as he told WOGZ.

Quote:
The most blatant example of this came last October when he retweeted a photograph of Trayvon Martin's slain body. The original tweet read "Z-man is a one-man army." Following media outrage, Zimmerman claimed he wasn't aware the tweet included a photograph.

Zimmerman is no stranger to Twitter controversy. He's used it to call President Barack Obama an " ignorant baboon" -- which was widely perceived as a racial slur. Perhaps he remembered Obama's comment after the shooting that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids." And Zimmerman he allegedly invoked the shooting of Martin by tweeting at a critic, "We all know how it ended for the last moron who hit me. Give it a whirl, cupcake."

Now, his online presence consists of his website. Its homepage displays a photograph of a cigar dangling from the fingers of an arm tattooed with "sic vis pacem para bellum" -- Latin for "If you want peace, prepare for war" -- and a pistol tucked into a holster. On the "about" page is a personal recounting of the Martin shooting.

Racial conflict and firearms appear to be a recurring theme for Zimmerman. Last August, he teamed up with Florida Gun Supply - a gun store that had publicly declared itself a "Muslim-free zone" - to sell prints of a painting by Zimmerman depicting a Confederate battle flag and the inscription, "The 2nd protects our 1st."
Nah, he didn't stalk and murder an unarmed Black kid because he is a piece of racist scum. Race had nothing to do with it.
  #71  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:32 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We have no evidence that the gun was pointed at Martin at the moment Martin initiated his attack on Zimmerman. Personally, I find the theory laughably implausible, so yes I doubt it.
Then you must have some other, by your definition plausible, theory as to why Martin jumped him. You've been asked repeatedly, now what is it?
  #72  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:36 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Snowboarder Bo, I don't see how my position is ambiguous. This guy shouldn't have been shot, because he intended no harm to the police, and would have caused no harm to the police had he not been shot. However, I can see why the shooting happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The police should determine that, or attempt to determine that, BEFORE they shoot someone, IMO. Do you disagree?
Of course the police should have determined this. How do you propose they do so, in this situation? They came into the door, and saw a man holding a gun. While pointing a gun at him, they demanded he lower his weapon. He didn't hear them, which is why he didn't do so, but they had no way to ascertain this at the time. What do you suggest that they should have done? The man was in the next room over, and debris is blocking the door making it difficult to approach the man. He is clearly holding the gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other -- but because of the dark surroundings it's hard to tell in the video WHAT he is holding in the second hand, just that light is coming from it. I suppose the officer thought it was a gun with a flashlight on its end. The man raises the flashlight and points it right at the officer, at which point the officer shoots.

Quote:
Again, you're assuming knowledge on Mr. Black's part, but you've also already acknowledged that Mr. Black did not hear the officer(s). If he didn't hear them, he didn't know he was supposed to stop holding the gun. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree, but at the same time, when you bring a gun into your home, you assume certain risks. The largest, of course, is that you or a loved one will accidentally kill or harm yourself or one another using the gun.

You also take the risk that, in a moment of depression or hopelessness, you or a loved one will make an irrevocable decision that you'll regret -- while this can happen even if you don't have a gun, having a gun makes it much more likely that a snap decision will turn into action.

And you also take the risk that you'll be seen carrying that gun in a moment like this and be shot by the police. If you have a disability that makes it more likely that you will ignore police instructions to lower your weapon, maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

The pro-gun crowd will point out that owning a gun allowed him to save his grandson, and this is true. But owning a gun also got him killed, and statistically, the second is much more likely to occur.

None of this justifies the shooting. But it explains it.

Quote:
Whoa! He did? I don't recall seeing that in any of the news stories about this. I have not watched the video (and don't intend to).
He did. I watched the video a few times and basically -- he enters view, stepping into a doorframe that leads out of the next room. The officers are standing one room removed, there's a cabinet that fell in the closest doorway, so they haven't entered the room that the victim is now standing in.

He is halfway through the doorframe, clearly holding a gun in his right hand. You can tell he's holding something in his left, but because the light is coming from it, it's hard to tell what.

He looks over at the officers, sees them, and, while he doesn't move his gun hand (the gun is held in front of his stomach, pointing down) he snaps his other hand to shine the flashlight directly on the officer.

There's no way for the officer to know that this is only a flashlight, and not a pistol with a light on it. There's no way for the officer to know that the man won't shoot as soon as he's lit up his target. So he acted, and shot the man.

It was tragic. It's terrible that an innocent man was killed. But based on the events that occurred, the actions of the victim -- even if totally understandable from his perspective -- led to the equally understandable action of the officer in shooting the victim.

This is why I'm in favor of bodycams on all police officers. In this case, I think it cleared the cop of any wrongdoing.
  #73  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:37 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
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".
According to his testimony, Zimmerman had lost track of Martin, which is why he was still standing so far from the Martin residence. According to Dee Dee's testimony, Martin went back to confront the (derogatory term) following him. Martin approached Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Martin lost that fight.
  #74  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then you must have some other, by your definition plausible, theory as to why Martin jumped him. You've been asked repeatedly, now what is it?
I answered to the best of my ability here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know why he decided to get violent with Zimmerman. It was an extremely foolish decision, but foolish decisions seem to be something of a pattern for Martin:

Quote:
While a student at Dr. Michael M. Krop High School, Martin had behavioral issues. At the time of the shooting, he was serving a ten-day suspension for having a marijuana pipe and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. He had been suspended twice before, for tardiness and truancy and marking up a door with graffiti. The suspension for graffiti was in October 2011, when Martin was observed by a school police officer on a security camera "hiding and being suspicious" in a restricted area of the school. According to the officer, he later observed Martin marking up a door with "W.T.F." When his backpack was searched the next day by a Miami-Dade School Police officer, looking for the graffiti marker, the officer found a dozen pieces of women's jewelry, a watch and a screwdriver that was described by the school police officer as a burglary tool. The jewelry found in his backpack included silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds. When Martin was asked by the officer if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend, he said a friend had given it to him. When asked for the name of the friend, Martin declined to provide it.

...

The Miami Herald also reported that Martin was not happy at Krop High School: in one of his tweets he had written, "WULD I MISS KROP?? HELL NAW FUK DA SKOOL, FUK DA LUNCH, ND MOST OF ALL FUK DA FACULTY..... IMA MISS SUM OF DA STUDENTS, MAINLY DA BABIES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin

Stupid kids do dumb things, oftentimes without having a clear idea why they are doing them.

I doubt me speculating on his motives would do anything but inflame people here, so I'll politely decline.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 03:40 PM.
  #75  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:40 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
What a load. Arizona is a brand most readily associated with bottled iced tea. They apparently also make fruit beverages without tea. The idea that reporting "a bottle of Arizona brand iced tea" instead of "a bottle of Arizona brand fruit juice" serves some nefarious greedy media narrative is just fucking asinine.
The media had access to the crime scene photos. Rather than report the fact, or the truth, the media chose to report a rumor. You may find that acceptable. I don't.
  #76  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:43 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I doubt me speculating on his motives would do anything but inflame people here, so I'll politely decline.
Not so fast. If the theory that seems obvious to most of us is "laughably implausible" to you, what to you IS plausible? You don't have anything to offer, do you?

If that puts your attempt at victim-blaming in the shitter where it came from, well, that's what we're here for, you're welcome.
  #77  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:44 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You weren't talking about "the moral right and wrong" when you wrote this:



Don't bite my head off for correcting you when you make a factually-wrong legal claim.
That was part of a longer sentence. That longer sentence was my theory as to what happened, which I provided in response to you asking me... what my theory was. The full context was:

Quote:
Zimmerman scared the shit out of Trayvon when he was following him around before. When Zimmerman started questioning Trayvon, he either pulled out the gun, or Martin saw its bulge or otherwise realized how big of a threat he was in. Realizing that he could not escape an armed assailant who could shoot him in the back if he ran, Martin defended himself as best he could (ironically enough, in accordance with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, he would be allowed to use deadly force to defend himself here). Unfortunately, Zimmerman reached his gun and murdered Martin despite his best efforts to defend himself.
If my theory were correct, and Trayvon had seen the gun in Zimmerman's possession, then when Zimmerman started questioning him in this way, Trayvon would have realized that he could not be expected to escape, since his assailant was armed. As such, Stand Your Ground laws would apply.

However, since Zimmerman successfully killed Trayvon, we'll never get to hear his testimony as to whether Zimmerman's weapon entered the equation, and so will never be able to prove self defense.

You've been asked repeatedly for your theory. Why do you think Trayvon would suddenly attack Zimmerman?


Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
According to his testimony, Zimmerman had lost track of Martin, which is why he was still standing so far from the Martin residence. According to Dee Dee's testimony, Martin went back to confront the (derogatory term) following him. Martin approached Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Martin lost that fight.
I don't even know how to respond to this.
  #78  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:46 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I answered to the best of my ability here:




Stupid kids do dumb things, oftentimes without having a clear idea why they are doing them.

I doubt me speculating on his motives would do anything but inflame people here, so I'll politely decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not so fast. If the theory that seems obvious to most of us is "laughably implausible" to you, what to you IS plausible? You don't have anything to offer, do you?

If that puts your attempt at victim-blaming in the shitter where it came from, well, that's what we're here for, you're welcome.
I'm starting to think that Thing Fish is right, and that the answer is that Trayvon's race is all the motive he needs.
  #79  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,924
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.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-05-2018 at 03:50 PM.
  #80  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not so fast. If the theory that seems obvious to most of us is "laughably implausible" to you, what to you IS plausible? You don't have anything to offer, do you?

If that puts your attempt at victim-blaming in the shitter where it came from, well, that's what we're here for, you're welcome.
Could you explain your theory to me again, because it's a bit bizarre from my perspective? Here's what I've gathered so far: that you think GZ confronted TM, gun drawn, surly, and menacing, and began interrogating him. TM, in fear for his life, attacks GZ. GZ (and this is where your theory gets particularly implausible in my eyes) allows TM to break his nose, knock him down, straddle him, beat his head on the concrete for a bit before deciding, finally, to shoot TM with the gun he has held in his hand this entire time. Is that right?
  #81  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:49 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Yes, because he FELT THREATENED by the armed man who was stalking him and now demanding to know why he was here, in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, acting suspicious in no way, aside from daring to be black. And when this armed man made these threatening remarks to Martin, he proceeded to defend himself, quite effectively. That's why he punched Zimmerman and had grass stains on his knees. Because he was defending himself. If I was being followed by an armed man, I would defend myself too.
It sounds like you think Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before the fight started, and that was why Martin felt threatened. If so, it presents some problems, like
  1. How did he know that? And especially
  2. If he knew it, and was a few steps away from the safety of his own living room, why would he double back, seek out the armed man, and confront him, if he felt so threatened? That doesn't sound like the actions of someone who feels threatened, and it certainly isn't the best course of action to take. As turned out to be the case.
Quote:
So now you're saying that when Zimmerman is on patrol, all the shady black kids better get indoors and hide themselves, because if they run into George "Batman" Zimmerman, First Lieutenant, Neighborhood Watch, then he can question them for their suspicious behavior?
I don't think you quite understand the legal situation. It isn't just neighborhood watch people, and it isn't only black people.

You can stop someone on the street and ask them what they are up to. That's legal. The person you stop is entirely justified if he
  1. gives you a detailed account of his movements for the last 24 hours, complete with Powerpoint slides
  2. tells you to go piss up a rope
  3. walks away without saying anything
  4. attempts to recruit you for an Amway dealership, or
  5. recommends you attempt sexual congress with a juniper bush.
Attacking you and breaking your nose and bashing your head on the ground - not so much.
Quote:
How come no one is questioning Zimmerman for HIS suspicious behavior?
As I recall, there was a trial. ISTM that there were a good many questions asked about his behavior. The upshot of which was that it was not possible to show beyond a reasonable doubt that any of his actions were against the law.

Regards,
Shodan
  #82  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:54 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Could you explain your theory to me again, because it's a bit bizarre from my perspective? Here's what I've gathered so far: that you think GZ confronted TM, gun drawn, surly, and menacing, and began interrogating him. TM, in fear for his life, attacks GZ. GZ (and this is where your theory gets particularly implausible in my eyes) allows TM to break his nose, knock him down, straddle him, beat his head on the concrete for a bit before deciding, finally, to shoot TM with the gun he has held in his hand this entire time. Is that right?
Nope, he probably just menacingly showed his holster to the poor kid, thinking this would coerce the uppity darkie to cooperate. Trayvon got scared and started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, trying to prevent him from drawing his weapon. He failed to do so.
  #83  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Snowboarder Bo, I don't see how my position is ambiguous. This guy shouldn't have been shot, because he intended no harm to the police, and would have caused no harm to the police had he not been shot. However, I can see why the shooting happened.
I can see why the shooting happened too. I'm trying to figure out if we agree on what happened before I worry about why it happened. And you keep using language that only shows one perception of events; I'm taking issue with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Of course the police should have determined this.
Awesome; we agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
How do you propose they do so, in this situation?
Via a different method than the one that ended up with a dead law-abiding homeowner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
They came into the door, and saw a man holding a gun. While pointing a gun at him, they demanded he lower his weapon. He didn't hear them, which is why he didn't do so, but they had no way to ascertain this at the time. What do you suggest that they should have done? The man was in the next room over, and debris is blocking the door making it difficult to approach the man. He is clearly holding the gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other -- but because of the dark surroundings it's hard to tell in the video WHAT he is holding in the second hand, just that light is coming from it. I suppose the officer thought it was a gun with a flashlight on its end. The man raises the flashlight and points it right at the officer, at which point the officer shoots.
Sounds like 100% bad policing. The officer had no idea who he was looking for, what the situation was, who might be inside, who might be armed, etc. He just charged in without knowing anything about what he was doing; that should be criminal negligence, IMO, at the very least.

The way you write it, tho, it comes across as more attempts to justify the shooting. The officer didn't know those things? Well, Mr. Black didn't know he was being told to drop his gun. Why is the officer's life more valued than the law-abiding homeowner's life? Which of the two had a sworn responsibility to uphold the law, and had training and testing with a firearm? Why is the officer allowed to take significantly less responsibility for this event than the deceased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I don't disagree, but at the same time, when you bring a gun into your home, you assume certain risks. The largest, of course, is that you or a loved one will accidentally kill or harm yourself or one another using the gun.
Again you try and justify the shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You also take the risk that, in a moment of depression or hopelessness, you or a loved one will make an irrevocable decision that you'll regret -- while this can happen even if you don't have a gun, having a gun makes it much more likely that a snap decision will turn into action.

And you also take the risk that you'll be seen carrying that gun in a moment like this and be shot by the police. If you have a disability that makes it more likely that you will ignore police instructions to lower your weapon, maybe you shouldn't own a gun.
Holy fuck now you've actually gone and blamed the victim!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
The pro-gun crowd will point out that owning a gun allowed him to save his grandson, and this is true. But owning a gun also got him killed, and statistically, the second is much more likely to occur.

None of this justifies the shooting. But it explains it.


He did. I watched the video a few times and basically -- he enters view, stepping into a doorframe that leads out of the next room. The officers are standing one room removed, there's a cabinet that fell in the closest doorway, so they haven't entered the room that the victim is now standing in.

He is halfway through the doorframe, clearly holding a gun in his right hand. You can tell he's holding something in his left, but because the light is coming from it, it's hard to tell what.

He looks over at the officers, sees them, and, while he doesn't move his gun hand (the gun is held in front of his stomach, pointing down) he snaps his other hand to shine the flashlight directly on the officer.

There's no way for the officer to know that this is only a flashlight, and not a pistol with a light on it. There's no way for the officer to know that the man won't shoot as soon as he's lit up his target. So he acted, and shot the man.
There was no way to know it was just a flashlight, either. Or that it wasn't a banana with a flashlight on top of it. Or a banana on top of a flashlight. There's no end to the list of things that it might have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
It was tragic. It's terrible that an innocent man was killed. But based on the events that occurred, the actions of the victim -- even if totally understandable from his perspective -- led to the equally understandable action of the officer in shooting the victim.

This is why I'm in favor of bodycams on all police officers. In this case, I think it cleared the cop of any wrongdoing.
I think it confirmed that the cop did pretty much everything wrong.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 12-05-2018 at 03:57 PM.
  #84  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:59 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Could you explain your theory to me again, because it's a bit bizarre from my perspective?
It's already out there, and not just by me. You could scroll up. Any apparent bizarreness is your own problem.

Quote:
GZ (and this is where your theory gets particularly implausible in my eyes) allows TM to break his nose, knock him down, straddle him, beat his head on the concrete for a bit before deciding, finally, to shoot TM with the gun he has held in his hand this entire time. Is that right?
Take a look at a photo of Zimmerman and comment upon his apparent physical fitness, please.

When you come up with a Zimmerman-exculpating theory of your own that isn't "laughably implausible" or "bizarre", or for that matter one that even exists, do please let us know, will you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I'm starting to think that Thing Fish is right, and that the answer is that Trayvon's race is all the motive he needs.
Many of us have thought so since the first news reports came out.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 12-05-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #85  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:04 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It's already out there, and not just by me. You could scroll up. Any apparent bizarreness is your own problem. ...
Who else, besides you, thinks Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when Martin and Zimmerman had their brief conversation before Martin started the fight? AFAICT, you're the only one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... Take a look at a photo of Zimmerman and comment upon his apparent physical fitness, please. ...
I'd call him "out of shape"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... When you come up with a Zimmerman-exculpating theory of your own that isn't "laughably implausible" or "bizarre", or for that matter one that even exists, do please let us know, will you? ...
I don't need a theory to exculpate Zimmerman, I have the fact that TM attacked GZ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... Many of us have thought so since the first news reports came out.
And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 04:08 PM.
  #86  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:06 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,594
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.
It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion based on the evidence.

Regards,
Shodan
  #87  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:06 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It sounds like you think Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before the fight started, and that was why Martin felt threatened. If so, it presents some problems, like
  1. How did he know that? And especially
  2. If he knew it, and was a few steps away from the safety of his own living room, why would he double back, seek out the armed man, and confront him, if he felt so threatened? That doesn't sound like the actions of someone who feels threatened, and it certainly isn't the best course of action to take. As turned out to be the case.
I don't think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon "was doing" on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself.


Quote:
I don't think you quite understand the legal situation. It isn't just neighborhood watch people, and it isn't only black people.
I don't give a crap about the legal situation. This is like the Confederacy thread all over again. "Well, if you don't recognize the right to rebel, you're still part of England!". That's not the point! The point is that George Zimmerman was an evil fuck who followed a black kid around just to scare him and show him his place, and ended up killing that kid when he tried to defend himself. Whether Florida law allows Zimmerman to do this is irrelevant. Don't legal threads go in IMHO? If I wanted legal advice, that's where I'd post.

Quote:
You can stop someone on the street and ask them what they are up to. That's legal. The person you stop is entirely justified if he
  1. gives you a detailed account of his movements for the last 24 hours, complete with Powerpoint slides
  2. tells you to go piss up a rope
  3. walks away without saying anything
  4. attempts to recruit you for an Amway dealership, or
  5. recommends you attempt sexual congress with a juniper bush.
Attacking you and breaking your nose and bashing your head on the ground - not so much.
And you don't understand that we convey meaning in many ways, not just the specific words we choose. If Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon was doing here in a particular way, it could be construed as an implicit threat. Because we know Zimmerman was armed, and because we know of his peculiar history, I think it's very likely this was the case. No, not beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, but this is the SDMB, not the Supreme Court. And the "Zimmerman scares Trayvon who believes he is defending himself" explanation makes way more sense than whatever legendary explanation you and HurricaneDitka refuse to share with us, but is apparently along the lines of, "Trayvon couldn't contain his lust for blood any longer, spurned by marijuana and spray paint fumes, so he attacked Zimmerman to satisfy the hunger"
  #88  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:09 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.
Aided and abetted, in at least one case, by the very news organizations themselves.

Regards,
Shodan
  #89  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:12 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Via a different method than the one that ended up with a dead law-abiding homeowner.Sounds like 100% bad policing. The officer had no idea who he was looking for, what the situation was, who might be inside, who might be armed, etc. He just charged in without knowing anything about what he was doing; that should be criminal negligence, IMO, at the very least.
The officer had no idea that the criminal was dead already. He went into a house, which was filled with debris due to the entry of a criminal just before. He had to go in right away -- or should he have stayed outside and tried to ascertain information? What if the grandpa didn't wake up because of his deafness, and the intruder was in the process of killing the kid, and the police had stayed outside to try and determine what was happening (do you have an actual suggestion of how they would go about this?) for an extra five minutes, during which the kid had his throat slit?

Quote:
The way you write it, tho, it comes across as more attempts to justify the shooting. The officer didn't know those things? Well, Mr. Black didn't know he was being told to drop his gun. Why is the officer's life more valued than the law-abiding homeowner's life? Which of the two had a sworn responsibility to uphold the law, and had training and testing with a firearm? Why is the officer allowed to take significantly less responsibility for this event than the deceased?Again you try and justify the shooting.Holy fuck now you've actually gone and blamed the victim!
There was no way to know it was just a flashlight, either. Or that it wasn't a banana with a flashlight on top of it. Or a banana on top of a flashlight. There's no end to the list of things that it might have been.I think it confirmed that the cop did pretty much everything wrong.
You've admitted that you haven't watched the video, and aren't going to. And yet, you make these blanket statements that are easily contradicted by the footage. I am not one to justify police shootings. But in this case? I don't see what the else the cop could have done.
  #90  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion based on the evidence.
Funny that you talk endlessly about no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman, but you're perfectly happy to make horrible conclusions against a dead black child that was unable to speak out and defend himself and was never even charged and prosecuted in a court of law.

And your argument doesn't even require this ghastly and unnecessary cruelty to the dead and his family. It's irrelevant to the discussion. I can't even conceive of why someone would insist on it unless they were just interested in slandering dead black youths.

Uggh. I guess we can't even expect decency towards dead children and their families any more.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-05-2018 at 04:15 PM.
  #91  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:14 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Funny that you talk endlessly about no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman, but you're perfectly happy to make horrible conclusions against a dead black child that was unable to speak out and defend himself and was never even charged and prosecuted in a court of law, just based on whatever.

And your argument doesn't even require this ghastly and unnecessary cruelty to the dead and his family. It's irrelevant to the discussion. I can't even conceive of why someone would insist on it unless they were just interested in slandering dead black youths.
Because he had SKITTLES! And a watermelon-flavored drink that ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT iced tea! Oh, and on occasion, he smoked some marijuana.

Last edited by Babale; 12-05-2018 at 04:14 PM.
  #92  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I don't think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon "was doing" on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself. ...
I don't know why you use the word "likely" here. It's a fine theory (that GZ threatened TM with his gun), but without any evidence to support it.

Let me invite you to think through an alternative scenario. Imagine if GZ begins to question TM and TM, instead of attacking him, decides to choose one of Shodan's other options, perhaps B, C, or E. What do you think George Zimmerman's likely response would have been? Do you think it "likely" that he would have shot Trayvon Martin in the back as he walked away?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 04:15 PM.
  #93  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:21 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know why you use the word "likely" here. It's a fine theory (that GZ threatened TM with his gun), but without any evidence to support it.

Let me invite you to think through an alternative scenario. Imagine if GZ begins to question TM and TM, instead of attacking him, decides to choose one of Shodan's other options, perhaps B, C, or E. What do you think George Zimmerman's likely response would have been? Do you think it "likely" that he would have shot Trayvon Martin in the back as he walked away?
I think Zimmerman was looking for trouble, and determined to find it (this fits his pattern, of looking for trouble and finding it in a bunch of other cases, already cited). So, if he gave Zimmerman any non-compliant response ("none of your business", "fuck you, man", "I could ask you the same question") I think that Zimmerman would have escalated the situation until it ended in violence, since that was what he wanted. I don't think he wanted to KILL anyone, but he wanted a fight, and he was gonna make sure that he was packing heat when he got in one.

If Trayvon told Zimmerman the truth -- that he had gone to the store and was now on his way to his girlfriend's father's house -- I doubt that Zimmerman would have believed him. After all, he had no reason to think Trayvon was being suspicious (aside from Trayvon's race), yet he did; he would have no reason to think Trayvon was lying, but he still might. Maybe Trayvon would have survived. Why the fuck does his life depend on doing whatever Zimmerman wants, again?

If Trayvon bowed his head and showed Zimmerman that he knew a black man's place in Florida, then he probably would have been just fine.

Our society wouldn't be, though.


EDIT: To address your questioning of the word "likely" -- there's plenty of evidence, such as Zimmerman's past behavior, and his behavior since the killing. For example, he seems to be pretty proud of the fact that he auctioned off the gun he used to kill Martin, and brags (to the point of lying, apparently) about how much it sold for.

Last edited by Babale; 12-05-2018 at 04:22 PM.
  #94  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:24 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I don't think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon "was doing" on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself.
Since you think it's likely, there must be some evidence to establish it. What is that evidence?

Quote:
Don't legal threads go in IMHO? If I wanted legal advice, that's where I'd post.
This is GD, where we argue based on facts and evidence and logic. Where is your evidence? You just think so? Then it does belong in IMHO.
Quote:
And you don't understand that we convey meaning in many ways, not just the specific words we choose. If Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon was doing here in a particular way, it could be construed as an implicit threat.
What a reasonable person would do in that situation is the standard. "He asked me what I was doing in a scary way so I bashed his head in" is not what a reasonable person does.
Quote:
And the "Zimmerman scares Trayvon who believes he is defending himself" explanation makes way more sense than whatever legendary explanation you and HurricaneDitka refuse to share with us...
That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG? If I were afraid of someone, and I managed to escape him, why would I seek out the danger again?

"I'm scared of that white guy! I am almost safe - should I walk in the door?

Nah - that would be just what they're expecting! Instead, I will go looking for the white guy, so I can be scared some more, and then if he has a gun, I can defend myself against his extra-special scariness!"

Ooooookay then.

Regards,
Shodan
  #95  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Who else, besides you, thinks Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when Martin and Zimmerman had their brief conversation before Martin started the fight? AFAICT, you're the only one.
What matters is that he made Martin think so, right? Made all the easier by the fact that he did have a gun.

Quote:
I'd call him "out of shape"
And therefore it was easy for someone in shape to get on top of him, right? But that's "bizarre" to you.

Quote:
I don't need a theory to exculpate Zimmerman, I have the fact that TM attacked GZ.
But you refuse to say what made him do it. It's as if you don't have any idea, isn't it?

Quote:
And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.
Sometimes the facts are as inescapable as the conclusion, aren't they? No effort need be made to tell it the way it happened.
  #96  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG?
We don't know that he did that. It's one possible interpretation of the evidence presented, but not the only one. It really is ghastly that you're so willing to slander a dead child without anything close to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when your argument doesn't require this in any way at all.
  #97  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:28 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I think Zimmerman was looking for trouble, and determined to find it (this fits his pattern, of looking for trouble and finding it in a bunch of other cases, already cited). So, if he gave Zimmerman any non-compliant response ("none of your business", "fuck you, man", "I could ask you the same question") I think that Zimmerman would have escalated the situation until it ended in violence, since that was what he wanted.
According to Dee Dee's testimony, Martin was the first to speak when he confronted Zimmerman. Martin said (according to Dee Dee) "what you following me for?" and Zimmerman replied "what are you doing around here?" whereupon Martin attacked. So Martin was the one escalating right from the get-go.

Regards,
Shodan
  #98  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:31 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Since you think it's likely, there must be some evidence to establish it. What is that evidence?
Zimmerman's behavior before and after the killing. For example, how proud he is of the weapon he used to kill Trayvon.

Quote:
This is GD, where we argue based on facts and evidence and logic. Where is your evidence? You just think so? Then it does belong in IMHO.
You still haven't explained why you believe Trayvon would attack Zimmerman if he didn't feel threatened by him.
Quote:
What a reasonable person would do in that situation is the standard. "He asked me what I was doing in a scary way so I bashed his head in" is not what a reasonable person does.
So, let me describe a scenario. Monica is in line for the restroom at a bar. A man approaches her, looks her up and down, licks his lips, and then says, "You've got a real purty mouth...". She maces him. Still as ridiculous? Or do you realize that "He complimented me in a scary way!" could actually mean "What he said was technically a compliment, but he was ACTUALLY implying that he wanted to rape me"? Because "What are you doing here?" when said to a black man can mean "You came to the wrong neighborhood, n...." and, based on his behavior before and after the incident, is pretty fucking clearly what Zimmerman meant.
Quote:
That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG? If I were afraid of someone, and I managed to escape him, why would I seek out the danger again?

"I'm scared of that white guy! I am almost safe - should I walk in the door?

Nah - that would be just what they're expecting! Instead, I will go looking for the white guy, so I can be scared some more, and then if he has a gun, I can defend myself against his extra-special scariness!"

Ooooookay then.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck
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".
  #99  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What matters is that he made Martin think so, right? Made all the easier by the fact that he did have a gun.
You're avoiding the questions. I can understand why though. If I made arguments as convoluted as yours, I'd probably try to pivot away from them with phrases like "What matters is ..." too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... And therefore it was easy for someone in shape to get on top of him, right? But that's "bizarre" to you. ...
I already explained to you which part of your theory I found bizarre, and this wasn't it. Try reading my post #80 again, this time for comprehension.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... But you refuse to say what made him do it. It's as if you don't have any idea, isn't it? ...
I have no clear evidence on his motive. It could have been any one or a combination of a great many things. Speculating without evidence would invite charges from iiandyiiii that I'm "slandering" Martin.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 04:36 PM.
  #100  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:36 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
According to Dee Dee's testimony, Martin was the first to speak when he confronted Zimmerman. Martin said (according to Dee Dee) "what you following me for?" and Zimmerman replied "what are you doing around here?" whereupon Martin attacked. So Martin was the one escalating right from the get-go.

Regards,
Shodan
It seems to me that if I was walking around and minding my own business, and someone had been following me, it would be reasonable to confront him to try and find out why he was following me. It also is perfectly reasonable not to go into your home and LET THE STALKER KNOW WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. You're right, in a perfect world, Trayvon would have called the cops on Zimmerman. But there are plenty of reasons for a black teen not to trust the police.

Your own post shows the ridiculousness of your theory. You imagine Martin was so triggered by Zimmerman asking "what are you doing around here" that he snapped and attacked? Isn't it more reasonable (especially considering what we know about Zimmerman) that he asked this in exactly the threatening sort of way I'd described, leading Trayvon to try and defend himself?

Or is Zimmerman beyond reproach, and we only need to question the motives of 17 year old black men?
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 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017