Arbery Shooting in Georgia and Citizen's Arrest [& similar shootings]

[steronz]

@Martin_Hyde

I think two-fold things. One, I think you’re downplaying the importance of the illegal detention. It may seem a small thing, but in no small part it’s why three men are highly likely to die in prison over this. If you think that using force to stop someone’s freedom of movement is a minor thing, you should realize that it isn’t. People should realize that before engaging in such behavior. That’s exercising police power, ordinarily reserved for the State, and when exercised by a private individual you had damn well know you’re in the right.

And I think you’re up-playing the severity of the detention.

Don’t get me wrong – I think some good ol’ boys pulling their trucks sideways across the road to block in a black man in Georgia is terrifying, and should be illegal. But… I mean, let’s say you’re telling the tale of Zimmerman to a conservative who hadn’t heard it before. And the conservative is just nodding his head, “yep, yep, all legal, all within his rights, hunky dory.” But then you add in that he pulled his truck out in front of Martin. You think the conservative is going to suddenly say, “Whoa, stop everything. Throw this guy in jail!”

[Martin_Hyde]

If you’re going to speculate on my motivations we have nothing further to discuss.

[steronz]

Speculation retracted.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Steophan

I think this is the most important point to respond to. You can call them that, but in the event that they’ve been found not guilty of the allegations you are making in a fair trial (so not a mid 20th century Southern court such as the one trying Emmett Till’s killers for example) you should not call them that, as they are factually innocent in that case. In my opinion, making factual false negative statements about people is immoral. (As an aside, that is something iiandyiiii should consider if he keeps making certain claims about me).

This is wrong because “legal” does not necessarily equal “factual”.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Here you are, defining the terms again. Do you have a list ready or do you just object to usage on an ad hoc basis?

[Gyrate]

@steronz

Agree or disagree – the only difference between the two cases here is that the McMichael’s tried to block Arbery’s exit from the situation with their trucks. Something that was so ineffective that Arbery was able to just casually run around the truck.

And could have done so with the reasonable expectation of outrunning 1) trucks and 2) bullets?

@Martin_Hyde

Find a black person who is willing to knock you to the ground and start punching your face repeatedly, so that when you are interviewed by police they can document wounds to your head, and so that at the time you shoot you can show through forensics you were prone on your back and the person you shot was on top of you. But yep, that’s all you have to do is create a scenario just like that.

From this thread I’m led to believe that people being put so in fear for their lives that they feel the need to take violent action is both normal and justifiable.

[Martin_Hyde]

The law spells out situations when it is justifiable right, it doesn’t spell out when it is “normal”, but ostensibly laws generally reflect some basis in reality. Self-defense laws being what they are, it would thus suggest they were written to cover scenarios that law makers assumed would actually happen.

“Normal”, is a lot more subjective. We have tens of thousands of murders and many more serious violent assaults in our country every year, I would assume most of those involve at least some inflection point where a victim could legally have used self-defense. But we’re a big country, 330 million people, so even though much is made of our homicide rate and such it’s still a very small likelihood on an individual basis, which may suggest it isn’t quite “normal.”

[Gyrate]

Nonetheless, it does suggest that it would not be as implausible to “create a scenario just like that” as you seem to be implying; indeed, your latest post appears to support that view.

[Martin_Hyde]

Implausible, yes. Impossible–no, but I never said as much. Also as I said, this thread isn’t about the Zimmerman case.

[Buck_Godot]

@Martin_Hyde

I would disagree that a legal discussion has no place in Great Debates, that’s ridiculous.

Yes that would be ridiculous, but no one is saying that. What they are saying is that discussion beyond the legal aspects of the case are also allowed.

Without clear evidence its provable who initiated the conflict between Martin and Zimmerman. IMHO it seems much more plausible that Zimmerman took actions that provoked Martin into attacking him, possibly to the point that Martin could have been exercising his own right to self defense, rather than that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of the blue for no reason.

The Arbery case does blow one out of the water one bit of “evidence” that has been used to “prove” that Zimmerman was innocent. Many of Zimmerman’s defenders have pointed to Zimmerman’s apparent relief when falsely told by police that there was video of the incident as proof that Zimmerman is innocent. The Arbery case shows that people who believe they are justified in their actions may assume that video evidence will support this belief even when the opposite is true.

[Steophan]

@Buck_Godot

IMHO it seems much more plausible that Zimmerman took actions that provoked Martin into attacking him, possibly to the point that Martin could have been exercising his own right to self defense, rather than that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of the blue for no reason.

Then why did Martin not tell his friend that, but rather told her that he was going back to look for and confront Zimmerman? It doesn’t seem plausible that she would lie in court about what he said, and she certainly seemed to believe what he said.

[steronz]

@Steophan

Then why did Martin not tell his friend that, but rather told her that he was going back to look for and confront Zimmerman?

This is 100% made up, eh?

[nelliebly]

You need to get your facts straight. Martin did not tell his friend he was going back to look for and confront Zimmerman. He didn’t need to “look for” Zimmerman. Zimmerman was right there in plain sight. Also, “confronting” doesn’t mean attacking; it means “to face, especially in challenge.” (Miriam-Webster). If you were Black and had some “creepy white cracker” following you, watching your every move, you might well decide to confront him, too, to find out what was going on.

You’ve also mischaracterized the call. The friend on the phone testified that as he neared the home of his father’s girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman. He thought he had lost him but then noticed Zimmerman was following him again (or still) and was getting close to Martin. She urged Martin to run, but he was tired and out of breath.

“I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked ‘creepy.’ ‘Creepy, white’ – excuse my language – ‘cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker.”

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

“He said, ‘Why are you following me for?’ And I heard a hard-breathing man say, ‘What you doing around here?’” said Jeantel.

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin’s headset hitting something and “wet grass sounds.”

Source 1.
Source 2.

[Moriarty]

@Steophan

Then why did Martin not tell his friend that, but rather told her that he was going back to look for and confront Zimmerman?

I can’t authenticate a website, but here’s the purported transcript of that portion of testimony. Martin stops running before he’s confronted, but he doesn’t go looking for Zimmerman:

“Dee Dee: He say he lost him…breathin’ har’, you know. And I like, he goin’…so he say he lost him. And then a couple…and then he say he right by his ass…he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.

BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand that he’s saying that he’s “right by his ass”…meaning the guy is right by Trayvon?

Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…

BDLR: Right.

Dee Dee: He say he lost him.

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’

BDLR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy.

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I say, ‘RUN!’ You goin’ to run? He say he not goin’ run cause…I could have known he not going to run, cause he out of breath. and then, he told me, he say this guy getting’ close to him. I told him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he tired.

BDLR: I’m sorry…Trayvon said he’s not running because…he’s not going to run he said…because you could tell he was tired?

Dee Dee: Yeah.

BDLR: Well, how could you tell he was tired?

Dee Dee: He was breathin’ hard.

BDLR: OK, real hard?

Dee Dee: Real hard.

BDLR: OK. Could you…and you may not have been able to…could you hear whether it was raining at that time or not?

Dee Dee: It was not raining, cause I hear him OK.

BDLR: OK, and when you’re telling him “Run, Run, Run”, are you yelling at him, or…

Dee Dee: I was not yelling at him…

BDLR: I don’t mean yelling, I mean, but were you like, were you being emphatic like…

Dee Dee: Shouting…shouting at him, yeah.

BDLR: OK…um…and then what happened?

Dee Dee: And then he told me like the guy was getting close…like…and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”

http://johnrickford.com/Writings/AAVE-in-the-News/Jeantel-Transcript

[Steophan]

Yep, he ran to his dad’s house, then started walking back again to find Zimmerman. And found him. Then something happened - we don’t know exactly what - that led to Zimmerman on his back, with a head wound, with Martin on top of him, at which point Zimmerman shot him.

It would take an exceptionally biased point of view to say that, at the very minimum, that doesn’t provide for the possibility of self defence.

[Gyrate]

@Steophan

Yep, he ran to his dad’s house, then started walking back again to find Zimmerman. And found him. Then something happened - we don’t know exactly what - that led to Zimmerman on his back, with a head wound, with Martin on top of him, at which point Zimmerman shot him.

Could you point to where in the transcript it shows that he “started walking back again to find Zimmerman”? Because if the transcript above is accurate, if anything it indicates that Zimmerman found him and got “real close to him” after Martin tried to lose him.

[Steophan]

@Moriarty

Dee Dee: He say he lost him.

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: He started walking back again

Here

@Moriarty

Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…

And here.

He chose not to go into his father’s house, but rather to “walk back again”. After that, in the part of the transcript you didn’t quote but can be found from the link, Jeantel heard a “bump”, and something hitting the grass.

We then know from the physical evidence that Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, with Zimmerman sustaining a head wound, after which Zimmerman shot Martin. At the absolute minimum, that evidence is entirely consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman without provocation - Jeantel does not report any verbal threats. Therfore, it’s a clear aquittal as any reasonable person can see that self defence is possible.

To assume anything else occurred requires speculation that isn’t based on actual evidence, and so demonstrates nothing.

[Gyrate]

@Steophan

Here

That doesn’t say he walked back to confront Zimmerman. And the fact that shortly thereafter Zimmerman is reported as following him pretty much contradicts that interpretation. As does Martin complaining about the guy getting “real close” to him.

But tell us again about “speculation that isn’t based on actual evidence”.

[Babale]

@Steophan

He chose not to go into his father’s house, but rather to “walk back again”. After that, in the part of the transcript you didn’t quote but can be found from the link, Jeantel heard a “bump”, and something hitting the grass.

He was killed “right by” his father’s house, no walking back needed.

[Steophan]

@Babale

He was killed “right by” his father’s house, no walking back needed.

What are you basing that on? That’s not where his body was, nor what his friend reported. Martin, for whatever reason, decided not to go into his father’s house, but instead, in Jeantal’s words, started walking back again. Where do you think he was walking back to, if not to where he thought Zimmerman was? There’s no other explanation I can think of that makes sense.

Maybe she was lying. Maybe Martin lied to her. But there’s no actual evidence of either of those things, and in general you want evidence to show that someone’s lying under oath, also in general it’s unusual to assume that someone’s lying when what they are saying makes them or the person they’re defending look bad.

@Gyrate

But tell us again about “speculation that isn’t based on actual evidence”.

What is speculation? The evidence shows that Martin left the outside of his father’s house to “walk back” somewhere, at which point he encountered Zimmerman again. Where was he walking back to, if not to confront Zimmerman - a confrontation that we know happened. He was safely away from Zimmerman at one point, and from what Jeantal said was not in fear of him at that point. It’s fortunate for Zimmerman that we do have this testimony, as it is fully consistent with his claim of self defence.

Same as the Rittenhouse case, where we have a video that shows what happened. And a mirror image of what happened in the Arbery case, where again we have video. None of these cases are in dispute, we know more than enough in each one to say whether or not there is reasonable doubt of murder - and that’s all that actually matters. That the evidence actually exonerates Zimmerman and Rittenhouse should be an added bonus to them, but unfortunately people will always intentionally ignore that evidence to fit their biases - in this case, the biased view that shooting and killing people is always wrong.