Before I bother with this, please answer my question, is there anything beyond “young black man” for the reported “theft”?
If not how is that at all a helpful description? It matches tens of millions of Americans. It’s about as vague and useful as Ms Swan’s “He looked like a man”.
Stop being disingenuous. You know exactly what is meant by “looking at houses” in the context of suspicious behaviour where burglary is concerned. Either that, or you really are the moron I hyperbolically referred to you as earlier.
What actually appears to have happened is that Martin, being new to the area, was looking around far more intently than most people would do, and Zimmerman, concerned about the burglaries that had occurred, interpreted that as suspicious. An interpretation that I consider reasonable under the circumstances, although one that turned out to be incorrect. Which is unfortunate, but had Martin acted differently when he became aware of Zimmerman, it could have easily been cleared up.
I’m guessing you don’t see the slight problem with using a racial stereotype as proof that someone else is a bigot.
Not to my knowledge.
If the only description we have is “a man”, and a man is seen acting suspiciously, it’s reasonable to call the police.
If you don’t think Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin was reasonable, please explain why. Don’t forget that this happened in a private neighbourhood, of which Martin was not a resident.
Actually, no, no I don’t know what is meant, short of walking about peering into windows, is that what he was doing? No? Trying the doors, see if they were locked? But he was looking at them! Ah! Was he squinting at them, then, is that what is “suspicious”?
You seem to demand that this word “suspicious” carry a lot of weight without any actual definition. Or at least none that you are willing to share.
Your most important “fact” is bullshit. Even if you believe Zimmerman’s family (which haven’t exactly shown themselves to be deserving of such), he was at most an agitator against police misconduct. And there is some reason to believe that he had ulterior motives for even that.
And I don’t even personally believe that Zimmerman was a racist going out looking to kill someone - but calling him an “anti-racist activist” is at about the same level of unsupported hyperbole.
Paying more than usual attention to them. Most people, contrary to one of your earlier assertions, don’t walk around slowly looking at every house when they are walking. It is unusual behaviour. As it happens, Martin had a perfectly legitimate reason for his behaviour. As it also happens, Zimmerman had a perfectly legitimate reason for his suspicion.
Now, you may argue, there is no problem with walking in public slowly, looking at stuff. You’d be right, but you’re forgetting it wasn’t in public.
I assume you’re aware that it’s generally considered a civic duty to call the police when you see suspicious behaviour happening?
Behaviour that would lead a reasonable person to think he may be in the process of committing a crime will do as a definition for now. Please note the “may”.
I think that’s actually too narrow a definition, but it’s an inherently fuzzy concept, and a precise definition, or list of activities that are suspicious, is neither possible nor desirable.
Don’t confuse cynicism with paranoia.
Of course there is; you yourself are demonstrating that fact by your insistence that “black man looking at houses” is sufficient grounds for pursuit leading to a killing. It doesn’t matter much if Zimmerman is racist or not; he lives in a society that is, and unless he’s an idiot he knows he was going after someone that the police, courts and society at large are going to bend over backwards to assume is a criminal who deserves death. Which is exactly what we see from Zimmerman’s supporters, and from you.
If the end result of “wanting to protect your community from criminals” is bystanders being murdered, yes. You again demonstrate the racism infusing this situation, when you portray letting someone playing amateur cop to (supposedly) stop burglary is worth a man’s life, as long as he’s black.
So you don’t consider a campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force to be anti-racism activism? Or mentoring black children - and it’s the family of the children in question that say this, and that he’s not racist, not Zimmerman’s on family. Cite.
I know it must be upsetting to you that Zimmerman doesn’t fit your prejudices, but maybe this can be a learning experience.
It wasn’t the “pursuit” that lead to the killing, it was Martin’s attack on Zimmerman - assuming that Zimmerman is telling the truth. If he isn’t, we will find out, and he will be appropriately punished. As it stands, though, Zimmerman is the victim of crime, not the criminal.
Martin was not a bystander in this situation. Had he been, and continued about his business, he would have been back at the house he was staying at before Zimmerman caught up to him, for one thing. Not that he’s in any way obliged to do this, but by changing his actions, he stops being a bystander and becomes a participant.
If he attacked Zimmerman, as it appears he did, it is that act that caused his death. That doesn’t make it any less of a tragedy, but it also makes it not Zimmerman’s fault.
You are aware that Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to follow Martin, yes?
Unless you believe that Martin reached over and pulled the trigger, you are using a rather peculiar definition of the word “fault” that I am unfamiliar with.
I’m using one where using legitimate self defence isn’t a fault.
Do you realize your “cite” is nothing but completely unsupported statements and assertions from Zimmerman’s former lawyer, and one of his friends, and NOT the parents of someone he mentored? (Which, BTW, has fuck-all to do with “anti-racism activism.”)
You’re about as good at lying as Zimmerman is - IOW, not very good. [cite]
First of all, there was no campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force, it was about misconduct and nepotism in the police force. And there was no need to “create awareness” of anything, particularly locally, as the incident was already NATIONAL news at the time, not that I’d expect you to know that. Second, it’s pretty patronizing to suggest that the black community in Sanford needed Zimmerman to make them aware of racism, don’t you think?
There was long-standing turmoil within and around the Sanford Police Department predating any of Zimmerman’s involvement with “agitating for change.” There were opposing factions within the department, one consisted of “good old boys” who protected their own, and another that consisted of those who stood against such unprofessional behavior.
Also, it is a well known fact that Zimmerman had aspirations of becoming a police officer and had some connections to the department. It just so happens that the police chief that Zimmerman focused his attacks on was the outgoing (soon to retire, anyway) chief Brian Tooley. It just so happens that the lawyer AND the family of the man who was beaten by the son of a police officer, who was not arrested, feel that Brian Tooley was used as a convenient scapegoat. And ZImmerman was scaping that lame-duck goat pretty hard. Why?
Citeand quote:
At least get your facts straight before you try to bend them to suit your narrative. Asshole.
I’m sorry Zimmerman isn’t the evil monster you want him to be to make everything easy for you. I’m not the one bending anything, I’m not the one inventing racism out of nothing, and cherry picking facts. That applies to the people who want to see him punished whether or not he’s committed any crime, or even if he’s a victim of crime. They, and by the sound of it you, are the arseholes.
If you’ve got any evidence that Martin didn’t punch Zimmerman to the ground, and the witnesses were mistaken when they saw Martin on top of him in the fight, cite it. Until then, I’ll continue to believe that Zimmerman shot in self defence, not out of some racist desire to kill a black man.
So as long as there’s a conveniently vague description out there, vigilantes, never mind the police, can profile with impunity?
Some idiot, who thinks they “all look alike” reports a black man, because he’s too stupid or bigoted to tell them apart, so all black men are subject to harassment?
I already have you stupid, infected, cunt scab.
Except his family lives there. Are you such an evil fucking bigot you think a black child would never have anyone to visit in a gated community, or that this isn’t a relatively common occurrence?
Oh he looked at houses, he wasn’t a good black child who knew his place, looking at the dirt. Right? There’s residences, dirt, and concrete there. What’s he supposed to look at? Is he supposed to keep his head down like a good “boy”?
Kindly go fuck yourself.
What harassment? This has nothing to do with “all black men look alike”, or any other racist view. Zimmerman was, according to all reports, not racist, and there is nothing observably racist in his behaviour.
If he called the police on a black youth who was not acting suspiciously, you might have a point. But he didn’t, so you don’t.
No, you haven’t. You’ve stated that he wasn’t doing anything wrong, which is both correct and irrelevant.
No, they don’t, but again don’t let facts get in the way of your argument. His being black has nothing to do with the likelihood of his being entitled to be there.
Ah, you’re as stupid as elucidator. Have you actually bothered to read my posts?
I’ll try to explain again, in more detail for the hard of thinking. If you’re walking round Disneyland, of course you’re going to be looking at everything around you. If you’re walking through a residential area you belong in, usual behaviour is to look where you’re going, and especially when it’s raining get on with going there. Walking slowly in the rain, looking at all the houses around you, is unusual behaviour, and when there’s been several burglaries in the are gives rise to reasonable suspicion. Suspicion, of course, that could easily have been cleared up if Martin had waited for the police, and told them he was staying at his father’s girlfriend’s house - or even more sensibly, called the police if he was threatened by a strange man following him.
Anything, really, apart from punching Zimmerman to the ground and bashing his head against the ground. Are you forgetting that part again?
Truly, you are a master debater. Does this tactic often work when you realise you can’t refute someone’s argument?
About those witnesses. Apparently, you don’t keep up, or at least not to stuff you aren’t going to like. It was all over the news, and you missed it?
One of many, about how the “witnesses” are…lets be generous…not quite as solid as you might like to pretend.
Fortunately, this will all come out in the trial. Including the witnesses explaining why they were mistaken at first, but so certain several months later. It’s possible, of course, that they all have completely legitimate reasons for changing their stories that aren’t related to all the negative stories about Zimmerman, but they would still need to explain why they gave false information to the police in the first place.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that the physical evidence suggests that Zimmerman was injured in the fight, and was on his back for at least some of it, and that the only injury Martin received prior to being shot was to his fist.
Ultimately, it will come down to whether Zimmerman’s story is consistent both internally and with the physical evidence. If it is, it would be perverse not to believe it. If not, he will quite probably spend a good while in prison.
I will continue to believe his story until I have reason to do otherwise.
All well and good, talking about why the witnesses changed their story. But change their story they did, and yet, here you are, presenting your “witnesses” as if nothing had ever happened.
Not the best.
Fair point.
That said, I think that having several witnesses change their story is going to make it harder for the prosecution to make their case, unless Zimmerman has said something stupid (which, as I’ve said earlier, is a very real possibility), and harder for people to be certain of what really happened.
I’ll continue to default to believing Zimmerman until there’s convincing evidence otherwise.
Do you have any reason to think that the witnesses new stories are more credible than their original ones? If so, that could make a big difference.