Are you Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman?

Except if you kill the other person, and the police must accept your story, who would admit to initiating? The logical consequence of this is that any time someone is killed it will turn out that the dead person initiated the conflict. Hell, that is the way is today in areas where the claim that you felt threatened make the cops stop investigating. Who would admit to starting it, even it did meat the all the requirements of self defense at the end.

And if there is a supporting witness, they started attacking you too! You were outnumbered, it was kill or be killed!

It was still a damn fool thing to do, and completely against standard neighborhood watch procedure. Now, if Trayvon had been carrying a bloody machete and a severed head, maybe immediate action would have been called for.

If you follow me, stop me and demand to know what I’m doing in that neighborhood, I’m really going to be pissed off if you don’t show me a badge. Maybe it’s not against the law to do those things, but common sense ought to tell you such behavior is very offensive and provocative.

In my view, someone who kills someone else isn’t “innocent.”
I’m not saying throw the book at someone for ‘self-defense,’ but if someone ends up dead, the result shouldn’t be nothing.
And I never said it was ‘fair.’ Getting attacked is very unfair to begin with. Getting shot and killed is unfair. There is a whole world of unfair to deal with. I don’t think there is a single policy that could possibly be absolutely fair. As it is now, when shooting someone your best bet is to shoot to kill so there are no witnesses and no one to contradict your story. That’s very unfair too. Why didn’t the shooter shoot in the leg? Why did the shooting have to be LETHAL? That’s not fair either.
My “modest proposal” is to blunt ‘self-defense’ as a justification for homicide; not necessarily eliminate it, but blunt it. “Fair” has little to do with anything when death is involved.

In my view, if I’m about to get killed then trading not getting killed for a few months in jail is worth it to me. It isn’t a matter of fair, but if I’m going to kill someone I better have good reason, so much so that I’m willing to go to jail for it.

This is absolutely hilarious and pointed and did not get nearly the credit it deserved when you posted it. Nice job.

I am sure it is. It does not justify assault.

And a couple of nitpicks - we do not know for a fact that Zimmerman stopped Martin. And you are under no obligation to answer questions about what you are doing whether or not the asker shows you a badge. Martin was entirely justified in simply ignoring Zimmerman, telling him to go away and mind his own business, or otherwise communicating “go pound sand, Kojak - I’ll walk where I like”.

I think you are using “innocent” in a different sense than the rest of us.

Well, that’s certainly true. What you seem to be proposing would make it very much more unfair.

Not as far as I can tell. Trying to kill some innocent person and winding up getting killed myself instead strikes me as pretty fair.

Come on - if Nicole Brown Simpson had had a handgun, do you think she should have served six month in prison if she put a round between OJ’s beady eyes?

Regards,
Shodan

Aww, shucks. Thanks! :slight_smile:

Of course, if OJ had been the armed neighborhood watchman, he could have simply told the police that Nicole attacked him, sparing us the months and months of media coverage and tax dollars. Yeah, I know, due process and all…

While I’m late to this party, and mostly everything has been said, I will add:

  1. One side benefit to all this is that I would suspect the number of armed neighborhood watchmen in Florida has been reduced greatly. Florida: Raise your taxes and invest in a professional and diverse police force. This ain’t the fucking wild, wild west.

  2. Trayvon is damn cool name. If I ever have another boy, it will be high up on the list of potential names. Of course, I read that Trayvon’s mom is trying to trademark it.

Which, in all likelihood, is exactly what happened. You think it is less likely that Zimmerman got a little more aggressive? It sure reads to me like Zimmerman was itching for a confrontation.

Possibly. Possibly not. I’m not going to pretend that I know all and see all. My point is for any law, there is a situation that is totally unfair. So it becomes a matter of what we decide we are comfortable with. You object because you envision a victim pure as fresh snow getting attacked by super-baddie and somehow managing to kill super-baddie. In my mind, this is a fiction, or at least very generous with omniscience. The reality is we often don’t know who is innocent and who isn’t (Hence the CURRENT controversy). Obviously, if I had a magic marker that could tell me who is innocent and who is guilty the solution is academic. We don’t have that.

But does that really happen? Or is it all storybook? Projecting what we WANT to happen onto our laws isn’t rational.

But that DIDN’T happen. This hypothetical projects something desirable, but that something is fiction. You are also assuming perfect knowledge of what happens and of the reality that would have happened had she not shot him. We don’t live in that fantasy world.

From another point of view, don’t you think Nicole Brown Simpson would choose to go to jail for six months over being dead? My point is that in situations where homicide really is justified, the participant is in a situation where he or she is absolutely willing to go to jail for their action.

I don’t have a “team”. I have no dog in this fight.

I do, however, think it’s odd that someone intent on committing a hate crime would call 911 first so that they could listen in and record the proceedings.

I don’t know, perhaps he called in order to throw enough “reasonable doubt” into the mix. Notice that he didn’t stay on the phone while committing the act. It would be interesting if they could somehow use the 40+ 911 calls that he made previously as proof that this was premeditated. He was just setting himself up legally, knowing that he would eventually murder someone.

It doesn’t matter if it’s being used as a trademark. No one can stop you from naming your kid “Trayvon.” That’s not how trademark law works. It doesn’t give you global control over a word.

All I know is that if I shot everyone who ever punched me, I’d be one of the worst mass-murderers in history.

He wasn’t necessarily contemplating a hate crime. More likely he just thought he could get away with harassing and bullying the kid.

True. We don’t have any “facts” about what happened between them. We do, however, know that Martin’s girlfriend has said he feared for his life, and was pursued by a stranger. What do you tell your kids to do when they’re being pursued, and are overtaken, by a random stranger?

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Come on - if Nicole Brown Simpson had had a handgun, do you think she should have served six month in prison if she put a round between OJ’s beady eyes?

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

IIRC, O.J. had a knife.

Well, technically he didn’t. A court of law found him innocent, therefore if Nicole had shot him it would have been murder since he wasn’t even present.

No dog, just a whistle? :dubious:

I don’t think that Zimmerman went looking for a black kid to kill. (and I think that very few people do) I think that his Batman fantasy spun out of control. I think that the reason that SYG needs to be revoked is that it’s implicit permission for paranoid nutbags to live out their Batman fantasies.

I find your ideas incontinent and would like to wipe my ass with your newsletter.

Or Rorschach.

“Zimmerman’s journal: Another asshole criminal on the street. The cops won’t get here in time. They never do. The city is a prison and the vermin are running the place. But not tonight. Kid doesn’t understand… I’m not locked in here with him. He’s locked in here with ME.”

Zimmerman caresses his gun momentarily then gets out of the truck

I don’t know what happened. Zimmerman’s story (as far as I can tell, and it isn’t very far) is that Zimmerman went up to Martin and asked him what his business was. Martin reacted by striking him in the face, knocking him down, and slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman then shot him, once.

I believe it’s reasonably well-established what Zimmerman’s injuries were (bloodied nose, cuts to the back of his head), and they are consistent with this story. I do not know what injuries were found on Martin, apart from a single gunshot wound. If he punched Zimmerman, I would expect some grazing to his knuckles. If Martin used the iced tea bottle (or can - I read one account that it was a can), then it is not necessary the case that Martin’s hands would be injured. Although there might be Zimmerman’s blood on the iced tea container. I would also expect that the fatal gunshot wound would be established to have occurred at close range, or perhaps even be a contact wound. I don’t know if that is the case.

I think some of the neighbors said they heard someone screaming for help, but it cannot be established if that was Martin or Zimmerman. I believe Martin’s father said originally he couldn’t tell that it was his son, but has since changed his story. FWIW, I believe him the first time, but suspect pressure and wishful thinking are the reason for the change in identification.

I believe there has been a good deal of speculation that Zimmerman said either “fucking coons” or “fucking goons” on his 911 call. Or perhaps he said something else, or nothing - I have listened to the recording several times, and I cannot tell what, if anything, is being said. People see different things in Rorschach inkblots, too.

Zimmerman told his story several times, and even reenacted it for police. They did not feel it warranted arrest. Now, based (it would seem) on the public outcry, the case has been referred to a grand jury. I very much expect that Zimmerman will be indicted - if a prosecutor can get an indictment of a ham sandwich, I expect he will be able to do so with the villain of the hour in Zimmerman. A conviction? That remains to be seen. I expect the outcry to have largely died away if the trial is more than a few months away, as I expect it to be. The mob has a short memory, and Al Sharpton will find something else to draw attention to himself.

But with the presumption of innocence, absent some fact that clearly contradicts Zimmerman’s story, I think the prosecution will have an uphill battle to convict.

Regards,
Shodan