Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2018, 10:42 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
How is Mason1972's example worse than the Zimmerman shooting?

In another thread, Mason1972 posted this rather unsettling post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This is like a double positive gun news story:

Cops shoot homeowner

First, the homeowner shot an intruder that was naked and inexplicably trying to drown a kid in the bathtub. THEN, the cops shot the homeowner because he didn't put his gun down.

It's win/win! Intruder killed, and a gun owner who doesn't listen to police commands is killed. Awesome!
Resoundingly, we all proceeded to agree that this was a horrible tragedy rather than an example of positive gun news. I'm very proud of the gun supporters in that thread who hastened to condemn this police shooting of an innocent civilian.

And yet, some of these same people defended Zimmerman when he murdered Trayvon Martin. Please explain to me how the Zimmerman killing is more justified than this one, considering:
  • Neither Martin nor the victim in this case were committing any crimes.
  • Martin was unarmed, and posed no threat to Zimmerman. The homeowner in this case was armed, and ignoring police instructions. While he did this because he was mostly deaf, the police had no way of knowing this.
  • Zimmerman is a civilian who was explicitly told by Dispatch not to follow Trayvon Martin. This police officer was responding to an actual crime that was being committed.

I'm very much hoping you guys can provide a reasonable explanation for why you'd be totally fine with Trayvon Martin being shot (or at least, unwilling to criticize Zimmerman's actions) while this other case is a tragedy. I'd like to hope that there's more going on here than the race of the victims.

EDITED TO ADD: I realize I didn't explicitly state my point of view. I consider both cases to be terrible tragedies. The Trayvon Martin case was worse, as the victim was unarmed, and should have resulted in Zimmerman's imprisonment for the rest of his life for murder in the first degree (he followed Trayvon Martin and attacked him, for no reason other than Martin's race making him "suspicious" in Zimmerman's eye. Since he assaulted Martin, committing a felony, and then proceeded to kill him, then this should count as felony murder, even if Zimmerman wasn't specifically plotting to kill the kid.)

This case, meanwhile, is an undisputed tragedy. The homeowner should not have been shot, but the police officer who shot him was acting as a reasonable person would when confronted by a possible armed assailant at the scene of a crime who is ignoring police instructions. Add that to the list of reasons not to own a gun.

Last edited by Babale; 12-05-2018 at 10:46 AM.
  #2  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:06 AM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Resoundingly, we all proceeded to agree that this was a horrible tragedy rather than an example of positive gun news. I'm very proud of the gun supporters in that thread who hastened to condemn this police shooting of an innocent civilian.

And yet, some of these same people defended Zimmerman when he murdered Trayvon Martin.
Cite that there are people condemning that shooting while defending Zimmerman?
  #3  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:24 AM
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,574
I'm with enalzi. You are making a huge assumption that is totally unsupported and, I believe, completely in error. So, I have no idea to whom you are referring when you say, "you guys".

The Martin situation qualifies as "tragic" in my mind because he was stalked and murdered, and the perp was, somehow, exonerated. The only thing "tragic" about this other situation is that it is a tragedy that anyone could be that stupid. Holding a gun and failing to follow police instructions is tantamount to "suicide by cop". I really can't envision how one could NOT be shot under those circumstances. In fact, I think it would qualify for a "Darwin Award".
  #4  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:38 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Jasmine, I agree completely with your assessment of the two cases.

As for a cite -- I guess my problem is more with the fact that people are acting like Mason1972's position is so abhorrent and unprecedented, including people who supported Zimmerman; but Mason1972's position isn't any crazier than supporting Zimmerman, because there were far more reasons for the cops to shoot this guy then there were for Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon Martin.

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.

Last edited by Babale; 12-05-2018 at 11:39 AM.
  #5  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:40 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Please explain to me how the Zimmerman killing is more justified than this one, considering:
  • Neither Martin nor the victim in this case were committing any crimes.
  • Martin was unarmed, and posed no threat to Zimmerman. The homeowner in this case was armed, and ignoring police instructions. While he did this because he was mostly deaf, the police had no way of knowing this.
  • Zimmerman is a civilian who was explicitly told by Dispatch not to follow Trayvon Martin. This police officer was responding to an actual crime that was being committed.

I'm very much hoping you guys can provide a reasonable explanation for why you'd be totally fine with Trayvon Martin being shot (or at least, unwilling to criticize Zimmerman's actions) while this other case is a tragedy. I'd like to hope that there's more going on here than the race of the victims.
I can try. Whether or not it will work this time, vs. the tens of thousands of posts in multiple threads about the Zimmerman shooting, remains to be seen.

Basically, your first two bullet points are incorrect insofar as they refer to Martin, and your third is irrelevant.

When Martin was shot, as far as the evidence can determine he was sitting on Zimmerman's chest bashing his head on the ground, after attacking him and knocking him to the ground. Which is a crime, and which also posed a threat, to say the least, to Zimmerman.

The police NEN dispatcher does not have the legal authority to order anyone not to follow anyone else, except where following someone would constitute a crime, which it did not in that case. So her saying "we don't need you to do that" does not affect the legal status of the shooting. Whether or not it was a good idea or not to follow him is a different issue, and in any case, Zimmerman (according to his contemporaneous utterances and the testimony of Dee Dee) was not following Martin. Martin and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other, and Martin was right by his father's girlfriend's condo, when Martin doubled back, found Zimmerman, and attacked him when Zimmerman asked him what he was doing.

Both shootings were tragic, no doubt, but the circumstances were rather different.

Regards,
Shodan
  #6  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:41 AM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,287
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.
Again, do you have a cite of people condemning Mason while supporting Zimmerman?
  #7  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:43 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Again, do you have a cite of people condemning Mason while supporting Zimmerman?
Look one post up from yours. Maybe I was premature in posting the thread without a specific example in mind, but one came in on its own, so it's not like I was crazy to believe it would happen.

I'll address your comment when I have a little more time, Shodan. I wholeheartedly disagree but, for what it's worth, thank you for your response.
  #8  
Old 12-05-2018, 11:43 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
...The only thing "tragic" about this other situation is that it is a tragedy that anyone could be that stupid. Holding a gun and failing to follow police instructions is tantamount to "suicide by cop". I really can't envision how one could NOT be shot under those circumstances. In fact, I think it would qualify for a "Darwin Award".
Wait...the septuagenarian? The guy with severe hearing problems? The guy who had just fired a handgun in close quarters, which is easily enough to temporarily deafen even someone with ears that work right? That guy should have expected to die when he didn't immediately hear and parse police shouting? That guy is a Darwin candidate???
  #9  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:01 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... And yet, some of these same people defended Zimmerman when he murdered Trayvon Martin. ...
You don't have the facts right. It wasn't "murder". This is how wells get poisoned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Neither Martin nor the victim in this case were committing any crimes. ...
Wrong. Martin was committing assault and battery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Martin was unarmed, and posed no threat to Zimmerman. ...
Wrong again. Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him, and had tried to take Zimmerman's gun.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 12:01 PM.
  #10  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:29 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Gee, why do you suppose he did that, huh? Did something happen just before that, maybe?
  #11  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:30 PM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Look one post up from yours. Maybe I was premature in posting the thread without a specific example in mind, but one came in on its own, so it's not like I was crazy to believe it would happen.

I'll address your comment when I have a little more time, Shodan. I wholeheartedly disagree but, for what it's worth, thank you for your response.
I mean, essentially you are asking for people to defend something that hasn't happened, and then cite the fact that people came into your thread to answer your question as proof that it happened.
  #12  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Gee, why do you suppose he did that, huh? Did something happen just before that, maybe?
I don't know which "he" you're referring to here, but nothing happened which justified (at least in the eyes of the law) Martin in attacking Zimmerman.
  #13  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:35 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I mean, essentially you are asking for people to defend something that hasn't happened, and then cite the fact that people came into your thread to answer your question as proof that it happened.
People were criticizing Mason1972 for saying what he said in that gun thread because it was so obviously wrong to celebrate the death of an innocent and praise the cop who killed him. These same people praised Zimmerman. So maybe they didn't specifically use the magic words you're looking for, but they do have the opinion that Zimmerman was justified while this cop was not. That opinion is what I want to debate here, and while I didn't have any "cite" of people expressing this opinion in plain terms, it was pretty clear they held that opinion.
  #14  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:48 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know which "he" you're referring to here, but nothing happened which justified (at least in the eyes of the law) Martin in attacking Zimmerman.
"In the eyes of the law". That's where you defend Stand Your Ground, right? And not Zimmerman's stalking and threatening of Martin, and brandishing his Good Guy weapon.

A reminder of the facts.
  #15  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:52 PM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"In the eyes of the law". That's where you defend Stand Your Ground, right? And not Zimmerman's stalking and threatening of Martin, and brandishing his Good Guy weapon.

A reminder of the facts.
Zimmerman was found not guilty. People of color were on the jury.
  #16  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:53 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"In the eyes of the law". That's where you defend Stand Your Ground, right? And not Zimmerman's stalking and threatening of Martin, and brandishing his Good Guy weapon.

A reminder of the facts.
I could see why you would try to make a (bad, inaccurate, wrong) case for "stalking", but at which point in the timeline did Zimmerman either "threaten" Martin or "brandish" his weapon? Or is that just a figment of your imagination?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 12:53 PM.
  #17  
Old 12-05-2018, 12:59 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Wrong. Martin was committing assault and battery.

Wrong again. Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him, and had tried to take Zimmerman's gun.
That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that Martin found himself being pursued by a stranger with a gun and he Stood His Ground and defended himself.
  #18  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:01 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Basically, your first two bullet points are incorrect insofar as they refer to Martin, and your third is irrelevant.
For those playing along at home, my first two bullet points were:
  • Neither Martin nor the victim in this case were committing any crimes.
  • Martin was unarmed, and posed no threat to Zimmerman. The homeowner in this case was armed, and ignoring police instructions. While he did this because he was mostly deaf, the police had no way of knowing this.

So, Shodan, what crime was Trayvon Martin committing? Possession of Skittles? Walking While Black? Hoodie in the Third Degree? Ignoring the instructions of a fat asshole who thinks he's a cop?

Are you claiming he was armed? Or do you take issue with my statement that he "posed no threat" to Zimmerman? Because if that's the part you don't like, then by your own logic, Zimmerman was posing a threat to Trayvon. A much worse threat, because he was armed. Therefore, Trayvon Martin would have been justified in killing Zimmerman, his armed assailant, in self defense, could he have done so.

Quote:
When Martin was shot, as far as the evidence can determine he was sitting on Zimmerman's chest bashing his head on the ground, after attacking him and knocking him to the ground. Which is a crime, and which also posed a threat, to say the least, to Zimmerman.
This happened AFTER Zimmerman stalked him, then pulled a gun on him. Stalking and brandishing a weapon often fall afoul of any of a number of laws, although I don't know if Florida has any of those and I don't frankly care enough to look it up. Point is -- put yourself in Trayvon's situation. You're walking down the street at night when a strange man starts stalking you, then corners you and pulls out a gun. In what possible world would any action you take against this madman NOT self defense?

Quote:
The police NEN dispatcher does not have the legal authority to order anyone not to follow anyone else, except where following someone would constitute a crime, which it did not in that case. So her saying "we don't need you to do that" does not affect the legal status of the shooting.
Why are you bringing up the legal status of the shooting? I'm asking you about the MORAL status of the shooting. We've already established that in Florida, it is legal to kill unarmed black people after threatening and stalking them when they exercise their right to self-defense. You might consider the law in Florida fine and dandy. I consider it barbaric. But I'm not here to talk to you about the law -- I'm asking about morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Wait...the septuagenarian? The guy with severe hearing problems? The guy who had just fired a handgun in close quarters, which is easily enough to temporarily deafen even someone with ears that work right? That guy should have expected to die when he didn't immediately hear and parse police shouting? That guy is a Darwin candidate???
I agree that he wasn't being especially negligent in this case. But at the same time, neither was the cop. How was the cop supposed to know that he's deaf, rather than purposefully ignoring the cop? And the victim raised a flashlight and pointed it at the cop. People have been shot for much less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Wrong. Martin was committing assault and battery.
By that logic, Zimmerman committed murder. Neither of them was ever convicted, so if you are going to call what Martin did "assault and battery" anyways, then I'll call what Zimmerman did murder.

Quote:
Wrong again. Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him, and had tried to take Zimmerman's gun.
Remember, I'm asking you about MORALITY, not LEGALITY. You are being followed through the night by a strange man. You are committing no crime. You lose this man, but suddenly come upon him again and he demands to know what you are doing. He's got a hand in his pocket in a pretty threatening manner. He is not law enforcement -- he's just a fat asshole who is fondling his gun while demanding to know why you're walking around out in public. And again, a few minutes ago, he was following you around.

Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't fear for your life, just like Trayvon Martin did? You wouldn't try to defend yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know which "he" you're referring to here, but nothing happened which justified (at least in the eyes of the law) Martin in attacking Zimmerman.
Nobody is asking about the eyes of the law. Zimmerman stalked Martin with a gun simply because of Martin's race. When they ran into each other again, he demanded to know why Martin was... walking around in public. In what possible world is Martin not right to fear for his life and take any steps necessary to defend himself?
  #19  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:05 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that Martin found himself being pursued by a stranger with a gun and he Stood His Ground and defended himself.
There are several problems with your theory. First off, he wasn't "being pursued" by Zimmerman anymore. He'd lost him, and was home. He then chose to go back and start a fight, which he lost.

Secondly, "stand your ground", and use of force in self defense in general, is only a legal option for someone who (in Florida statute) "reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force." You've got no evidence that Zimmerman was threatening "imminent use of unlawful force".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 01:10 PM.
  #20  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:06 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,780
I can't be the only one who's beyond thrilled that we finally have a thread in which to discuss the Martin/Zimmerman incident, can I?

(Also, apologies for the nitpick, but it's "Manson." Helter Skelter, not Humbert Humbert.)
  #21  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:09 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are several problems with your theory. First off, he wasn't "being pursued" by Zimmerman anymore. He'd lost him, and was home. He then chose to go back and start a fight, which he lost.

Secondly, "stand your ground", and use of force in self defense in general, is only a legal option for someone who (in Florida statute) "reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such otherís imminent use of unlawful force." You've got no evidence that Martin was threatening "imminent use of unlawful force".
I think you mean that we have no evidence that ZIMMERMAN was threatening "imminent use of unlawful force", and you'd be wrong. We do have evidence of that. The fact that he stalked a kid with a gun on some sort of vigilante crusade is pretty strong evidence of his state of mind. So does the fact that he pursued Martin after being told that the police will handle it. Any reasonable person being pursued by such a maniac should be scared for his life.
  #22  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:14 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
The homeowner in this case was armed, and ignoring police instructions. While he did this because he was mostly deaf, the police had no way of knowing this.
I'll quibble with the bolded wording: Mr. Black was not ignoring police instructions. "Ignoring" is a purposeful act that presumes both knowledge and intent; Mr. Black was ignorant of the police orders because he could not hear them (as you noted); he was not reacting to them. The fact that police characterize it as "ignoring" is itself purposeful, as it helps them build the narrative that they want.

Think how different the headline would be if it read "Police shoot man who does not react to their shouts", which is what really happened. And it isn't the first time (2011 case that drew no charges).
  #23  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:17 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... This happened AFTER Zimmerman stalked him, then pulled a gun on him. Stalking and brandishing a weapon often fall afoul of any of a number of laws, although I don't know if Florida has any of those and I don't frankly care enough to look it up. Point is -- put yourself in Trayvon's situation. You're walking down the street at night when a strange man starts stalking you, then corners you and pulls out a gun. In what possible world would any action you take against this madman NOT self defense? ...
You are wrong. Martin was not "cornered" by Zimmerman. And there's no evidence that Zimmerman "pulled out a gun" until after Martin had attacked Zimmerman.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... then I'll call what Zimmerman did murder. ...
You can call it whatever you like, it doesn't make your mislabeling any less wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
...Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't fear for your life, just like Trayvon Martin did? You wouldn't try to defend yourself? ...
I would not escalate the situation by introducing violence into it if I thought it could be handled peacefully. That was Martin's fatal error.

Someone following me and then asking me what I'm doing does not rise to the level of a threat to my life that justified the use of force.
  #24  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:18 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I'll quibble with the bolded wording: Mr. Black was not ignoring police instructions. "Ignoring" is a purposeful act that presumes both knowledge and intent; Mr. Black was ignorant of the police orders because he could not hear them (as you noted); he was not reacting to them. The fact that police characterize it as "ignoring" is itself purposeful, as it helps them build the narrative that they want.

Think how different the headline would be if it read "Police shoot man who does not react to their shouts", which is what really happened. And it isn't the first time (2011 case that drew no charges).
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?
  #25  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:21 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
For those playing along at home, my first two bullet points were:
  • Neither Martin nor the victim in this case were committing any crimes.
  • Martin was unarmed, and posed no threat to Zimmerman. The homeowner in this case was armed, and ignoring police instructions. While he did this because he was mostly deaf, the police had no way of knowing this.

So, Shodan, what crime was Trayvon Martin committing? Possession of Skittles? Walking While Black? Hoodie in the Third Degree? Ignoring the instructions of a fat asshole who thinks he's a cop?
According to the evidence, Martin was committing assault and battery.
Quote:
Are you claiming he was armed?
No.
Quote:
Or do you take issue with my statement that he "posed no threat" to Zimmerman? Because if that's the part you don't like, then by your own logic, Zimmerman was posing a threat to Trayvon. A much worse threat, because he was armed. Therefore, Trayvon Martin would have been justified in killing Zimmerman, his armed assailant, in self defense, could he have done so.
According to the evidence, Martin was the first to use violence. Martin was not justified in reacting to being asked what he was doing (according to Dee Dee's testimony) by attacking Zimmerman.

Asking someone what he is doing is not a threat, and does not justify violence. The idea of "I killed him because he asked me what I was doing" is absurd. "I killed him because I was in fear of my life from the person who attacked me, knocked me down, and was bashing my head on the ground" is not absurd.
Quote:
This happened AFTER Zimmerman stalked him, then pulled a gun on him. Stalking and brandishing a weapon often fall afoul of any of a number of laws, although I don't know if Florida has any of those and I don't frankly care enough to look it up.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman pulled his gun until after Martin knocked him down, broke his nose, and bashed his head on the ground hard enough to put gashes in the back of Zimmerman's head. There is evidence that he did not pull his gun - namely that the fight went on for a minute or more, long enough for people to hear it going on. If Zimmerman had his gun out, why would he wait for Martin to bash his head on the ground?
Quote:
Point is -- put yourself in Trayvon's situation. You're walking down the street at night when a strange man starts stalking you, then corners you and pulls out a gun. In what possible world would any action you take against this madman NOT self defense?
Zimmerman didn't corner him, as has been pointed out. Martin had made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, and then (according to Dee Dee) doubled back, found Zimmerman, and attacked him. And Zimmerman was not stalking him when Martin doubled back - they had lost sight of each other.
Quote:
Remember, I'm asking you about MORALITY, not LEGALITY. You are being followed through the night by a strange man. You are committing no crime. You lose this man, but suddenly come upon him again and he demands to know what you are doing. He's got a hand in his pocket in a pretty threatening manner.
Martin didn't suddenly come upon him again - Martin sought him out and attacked him.
Quote:
Zimmerman stalked Martin with a gun simply because of Martin's race.
There is no evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman's part, and being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking, morally or legally.

Regards,
Shodan
  #26  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:24 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that Martin found himself being pursued by a stranger with a gun and he Stood His Ground and defended himself.
Defended himself against what - being asked what he was doing? That does not justify a violent response.

Regards,
Shodan
  #27  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:29 PM
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Wait...the septuagenarian? The guy with severe hearing problems? The guy who had just fired a handgun in close quarters, which is easily enough to temporarily deafen even someone with ears that work right? That guy should have expected to die when he didn't immediately hear and parse police shouting? That guy is a Darwin candidate???
One shouldn't even need to hear it. It should be common sense, shouldn't it? The police respond to an incident. Do I really want them to see me with a gun in my hand? As they enter the house, I'm putting the gun down before they even see me holding it. I'm not going to get to the point where they see me and point a gun at me because anything could happen at that point, and I know that "anything" is going to be very bad for me.

Oh, people in their 70's are far from helpless and addled unless they have Alzheimer's or something similar, in which case they shouldn't even have a gun in the first place.
  #28  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:54 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,853
From the OP, snipped and bolded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post



I'm very much hoping you guys can provide a reasonable explanation for why you'd be totally fine with Trayvon Martin being shot (or at least, unwilling to criticize Zimmerman's actions) while this other case is a tragedy. I'd like to hope that there's more going on here than the race of the victims.
There isn't.
  #29  
Old 12-05-2018, 01:57 PM
Covfefe Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
I can't be the only one who's beyond thrilled that we finally have a thread in which to discuss the Martin/Zimmerman incident, can I?
What's to discuss? The prosecution should have brought Zimmerman up on manslaughter charges. Any reasonable jury would have convicted him.
  #30  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
From the OP, snipped and bolded.



There isn't.
Sure there is. The victim in Colorado had just saved his grandson from an intruder and was, in hindsight, not really a threat to the policeman that shot him. It was tragic.

Martin hadn't saved anyone, and was very much a threat to Zimmerman when he was shot.
  #31  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:06 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
The guy with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles was a threat to the guy with a gun.

Okaaaayyyy....
  #32  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The guy with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles was a threat to the guy with a gun.

Okaaaayyyy....
Yes. When someone is bashing your head against concrete, that's a threat.

front

back

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 02:11 PM.
  #33  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:10 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Sure, Martin just came out of nowhere and jumped the Good Guy before he had a chance to pull out his gun. Gotcha.
  #34  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:12 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Sure, Martin just came out of nowhere and jumped the Good Guy before he had a chance to pull out his gun. Gotcha.
Your alternate theory is what? That Zimmerman had a gun pointed at Martin the whole time but he still let him beat him up a good bit before deciding to shoot him?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 02:12 PM.
  #35  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:16 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Martin didn't suddenly come upon him again - Martin sought him out and attacked him.
Okay, that explains a lot. You're obviously posting from an alternate universe. Just for your information, that's not the way it happened here in our world. Zimmerman was following Martin in this universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There is no evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman's part, and being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking, morally or legally.
No, going around your neighborhood looking for people who you think look like criminals is what makes it stalking. And deciding that somebody looks like a criminal because they're black is evidence of racial animus.
  #36  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:20 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your alternate theory is what? That Zimmerman had a gun pointed at Martin the whole time but he still let him beat him up a good bit before deciding to shoot him?
No, my theory is that Martin saw a stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided that that stranger might be a potential criminal.

Your theory is that Zimmerman saw a stranger who was black and decided that that stranger might be a potential criminal.

Which of our theories sounds racist?
  #37  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:23 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. When someone is bashing your head against concrete, that's a threat.
Or it's self-defense.
  #38  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:26 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Okay, that explains a lot. You're obviously posting from an alternate universe. Just for your information, that's not the way it happened here in our world. Zimmerman was following Martin in this universe.
No, I am posting from this universe. Zimmerman spotted Martin, called in to the NEN dispatcher, who told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" (i.e. follow Martin), then Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other (according to Zimmerman's contemporary statements and Dee Dee's account) and Martin was "right by his father's house", and Martin doubled back, confronted Zimmerman, and then attacked him (according to Dee Dee's testimony and the circumstantial evidence) when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing.
Quote:
No, going around your neighborhood looking for people who you think look like criminals is what makes it stalking. And deciding that somebody looks like a criminal because they're black is evidence of racial animus.
Zimmerman was not going around his neighborhood looking for people; he was driving home from Target, and he was the neighborhood watch guy, who had already made a number of reports of suspicious activity ranging from missing children to burglaries in progress. Being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman decided Martin looked like a criminal based on Martin's race. Zimmerman's description of what made him notice Martin did not include his race, nor is there any evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman's part.

Regards,
Shodan
  #39  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:28 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Defended himself against what
Sorta hard to answer this when Martin is dead and Zimmerman (i.e. the guy who killed him) is the only other person who was present.
  #40  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:29 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Zimmerman's description of what made him notice Martin did not include his race, nor is there any evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman's part.
I believe this. I mean, if you can't trust the guy who shot him, who can you trust?
  #41  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:36 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Or it's self-defense.
It's not self defense without an "imminent use of unlawful force". Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing does not qualify as an "imminent use of unlawful force".

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-05-2018 at 02:38 PM.
  #42  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:39 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Sorta hard to answer this when Martin is dead and Zimmerman (i.e. the guy who killed him) is the only other person who was present.
The 911 recordings do add a little light, though. And not favorably for Zimmerman.
  #43  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:42 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your alternate theory is what? That Zimmerman had a gun pointed at Martin the whole time but he still let him beat him up a good bit before deciding to shoot him?
Yes, the gun was pointed at Martin, do you doubt it? Do you also not doubt Zimmerman's physical conditioning?

What's your theory as to why Martin suddenly jumped him for no apparent reason? (This oughta be good, too ...)
  #44  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:46 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I would not escalate the situation by introducing violence into it if I thought it could be handled peacefully. That was Martin's fatal error.
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?

Quote:
Someone following me and then asking me what I'm doing does not rise to the level of a threat to my life that justified the use of force.
I sincerely hope that you never experience a situation like Trayvon Martin did. Luckily for you, your race ensures that you probably won't, at least not in the United States. But in the years leading up to 2012 African Americans were the victims of over 4,000 violent hate crimes in the United States. So if Trayvon Martin doesn't share your certainty that the armed stalker coming after him isn't a threat, forgive me if I agree with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
According to the evidence, Martin was committing assault and battery.No.According to the evidence, Martin was the first to use violence. Martin was not justified in reacting to being asked what he was doing (according to Dee Dee's testimony) by attacking Zimmerman.

Asking someone what he is doing is not a threat, and does not justify violence.
I can assure you that you can stop someone on the street and demand to know what they are doing in a very threatening way. It's all about tone of voice and body language. For example, if you walked through the streets of downtown Chicago when an armed black man stopped you and demanded to know what you were doing there, there would be certain clues you could use to determine that he is asking this question because he doesn't believe your kind belongs in this place, and implying the threat of violence if you don't leave.

For an example of how asking someone, "what are you doing here?" can have racist undertones, check out this link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.a889d85a2f41

Obviously that woman wasn't particularly threatening. I would imagine an armed male of George Zimmerman's stature would be quite a bit scarier.

If you have never faced this sort of treatment because of your ethnicity, I'm very happy for you. As someone who has, I can assure you that it would not be very hard at all for George Zimmerman to say "What are you doing here?" while communicating the message, "You came to the wrong neighborhood, darkie".

Quote:
The idea of "I killed him because he asked me what I was doing" is absurd. "I killed him because I was in fear of my life from the person who attacked me, knocked me down, and was bashing my head on the ground" is not absurd.
What the hell is your theory? That Martin, a 17 year old boy with no criminal record or history of violence, noticed that Zimmerman was stalking him and decided to ambush him, then attacked him for no reason and started bashing his head against the ground? Isn't it much more likely that Zimmerman (who has a history of pulling this sort of vigilante crap and actually got in legal trouble for it when he did it again AFTER the Trayvon Martin thing died down) who had been stalking this kid actually did cause Trayvon Martin to fear for his life, leading him to defend himself?

Quote:
There is no evidence that Zimmerman pulled his gun until after Martin knocked him down, broke his nose, and bashed his head on the ground hard enough to put gashes in the back of Zimmerman's head. There is evidence that he did not pull his gun - namely that the fight went on for a minute or more, long enough for people to hear it going on. If Zimmerman had his gun out, why would he wait for Martin to bash his head on the ground?
Again, what the hell is your theory? That Martin had been hiding his savage bloodlust for 17 years, or perhaps the hormones of puberty just made him violent, and that he attacked and beat Zimmerman for no reason, despite Zimmerman being no threat to him?

Quote:
Zimmerman didn't corner him, as has been pointed out. Martin had made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, and then (according to Dee Dee) doubled back, found Zimmerman, and attacked him. And Zimmerman was not stalking him when Martin doubled back - they had lost sight of each other.
Martin didn't suddenly come upon him again - Martin sought him out and attacked him.There is no evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman's part, and being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking, morally or legally.

Regards,
Shodan
So why do you think Martin would do all of this? What's his motive? Because we have a motive for Zimmerman: he's got a hardon for Vigilante justice, as we can see by his actions both before and after the shooting. There's a very simple narrative (George "Batman" Zimmerman scared the ever-living crap out of a black kid by following him around, when the kid realized he had a gun he tried to defended himself and was killed) that explains literally everything about this case and is consistent with all the facts we know. What's your narrative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Defended himself against what - being asked what he was doing? That does not justify a violent response.

Regards,
Shodan
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
From the OP, snipped and bolded.



There isn't.
Sigh.... I'm beginning to suspect that you're right. I should have known better, but I was hoping against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure there is. The victim in Colorado had just saved his grandson from an intruder and was, in hindsight, not really a threat to the policeman that shot him. It was tragic.

Martin hadn't saved anyone, and was very much a threat to Zimmerman when he was shot.
You sure that the difference isn't that one of them was old and white while the other was young and black?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The guy with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles was a threat to the guy with a gun.

Okaaaayyyy....
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. When someone is bashing your head against concrete, that's a threat.
When someone follows you around with a gun, that's an implicit threat. Trayvon defended himself against that threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Sure, Martin just came out of nowhere and jumped the Good Guy before he had a chance to pull out his gun. Gotcha.
Right? What the hell is supposed to be his motive? It's like they think that the fact that he's young and he's black is enough to explain any violent actions by him, so they don't even bother ascribing any motivation to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your alternate theory is what? That Zimmerman had a gun pointed at Martin the whole time but he still let him beat him up a good bit before deciding to shoot him?
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.

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?
  #45  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:52 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... What's your theory as to why Martin suddenly jumped him for no apparent reason? (This oughta be good, too ...)
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
  #46  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:54 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,445
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:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin
GASP! You're telling me that Trayvon Martin smoked m.... mar.... MARIJUANA?! WHAT?! and he did gra-- graFITI?! man, good thing Zimmerman took him out, that guy was a menace to society.

No, wait. Those are non-violent offences, the kind a stupid kid might do. Do you have any evidence of VIOLENT behavior?
  #47  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:54 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, the gun was pointed at Martin, do you doubt it? ...
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.
  #48  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:55 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Sorta hard to answer this when Martin is dead and Zimmerman (i.e. the guy who killed him) is the only other person who was present.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I believe this. I mean, if you can't trust the guy who shot him, who can you trust?
You shouldn't. You should look at the evidence, including statements made by Zimmerman before the shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale
Why would Trayvon have any reason to think that this situation could be handled peacefully?
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
  #49  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:56 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The guy with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles was a threat to the guy with a gun.

Okaaaayyyy....
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
  #50  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... Do you have any evidence of VIOLENT behavior?
Yes, see post #32.
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 06:10 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