Why is it incumbent upon Trayvon to explain himself and not Zimmerman? And thanks for answering but I’d still like to hear Magiver’s explanition as to why Trayvon should have known there had been burglaries. And even if he did know, so what? He wasn’t committing them.
It wasn’t incumbent on either to explain himself.
There is no reason that Martin should have known about any burglaries, and whether he knew about them or not makes no difference.
Regards,
Shodan
Martin, no.
Zimmerman, yes. His history includes assaulting a cop and hitting his ex fiancée. The latter case is particularly interesting because when his gf filed for an injunction against him, his response was to do the same to her. So not only does he had a history for violence, he has a history of deflecting accusations of violence by blaming the other party.
He also lost a job as a security guard supposedly for being too aggressive.
I’m blown away by the burden of knowledge people think Martin should have carried with him. Not only was he supposed to know, in the infinite wisdom of a 17-year-old, that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain on patrol, but he was also supposed to know there had been burglaries in the area and that he “fit the description”? If Zimmerman’s (failed) attempts with catching burglars is somehow relevant, then why is Martin’s lack of experience with being a suspect of a crime and dealing with armed authority figures NOT relevant?
I have a question for Magiver and Steophan. You guys are willing to accept the suspect’s word about what happened until it’s disproven. Correct?
-
If Martin was alive to give his account of things and they contradicted Zimmerman’s on all critical points, which “evidence” would you go with and why? What would be your “truth”?
-
Do you take this tack when evaluating anyone that is suspected of a crime?
-
Let’s say Martin had landed a fatal blow to Zimmerman before Zimmerman could kill him, and now he’s in jail for murder. He tells everyone that he was just defending himself from a creepy guy with a gun who didn’t announce himself or his intentions, and tried to restrain him against his will. Assuming we have the same physical evidence that we have now, would you accept this “truth” as easily as you have Zimmerman’s? (I say supposed because we don’t know what the guy has said.) Why or why not?
-
If the answer to the above question is “yes”, then can’t you see how strange it is to talk about “truth” here? Truth is constant and doesn’t do a complete 180 based on the vagaries of someone’s word. We can speculate and exchange opinions and say “Well, this is too ambiguous to form a good opinion one way or the other!” But once we start treating our gut feelings as “truth”, we step into crazy land. Especially when we brow-beat other people for not doing the same thing.
-
If the answer is “no”, can you explain why?
it’s not incumbent for Trayvon to explain himself versus Zimmerman. It’s incumbent for him not to beat him.
Trayvon was living there and the question was self explanatory in nature. And as I’ve stated before, had a discussion ensued both would understood the position of the other. It would have helped if Zimmerman added another sentence to start the ball rolling but that also applies to Martin.
It can, and often is, interpreted as a prelude to violence, especially if it’s at night. That’s even more true if the person following you outweighs you and is a man.
I tell you now, it would scare me if I saw someone like Zimmerman following me.
The fact is, a boy died that night. If, because he was objectionable to you in some way, you are HAPPY with that outcome, then I’m not sure you understand what it’s like to be a parent. Good parents want their children to grow up in a world where children don’t get shot by adults.
Are you a parent? I notice a distinct lack of identification with Trayvon’s parents on your part. Would you really want your own son/nephew/brother/cousin to die in a similar situation?
What makes you think Martin had no experience being suspected of a crime?
I don’t know about Magiver and Steophan, but that is not quite a correct phrasing of my position. I believe whatever has been established by the evidence, subject to further amendment if further evidence becomes available.
Whatever was backed up with the evidence, just like now.
Yes.
I don’t know what you mean by the same physical evidence. But I would believe whatever the evidence showed.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not treating my gut feelings as truth.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve already said I don’t think he should have known that, and that it’s irrelevant to how Martin should have acted, and given a list of several things Martin could have done other than attack Zimmerman.
More or less correct. I consider that the presumption of innocence is something that should be applied to discussions about specific cases, and I think that the suspects statements to the police or to the court should be believed unless there is evidence that they are false - not necessarily that they are proven false. I would apply that to all witness statements, though. My main point in this case is that Zimmerman’s statement should be evaluated like any other witness statement.
If both Zimmerman and Martin gave a statement that was entirely consistent with all the physical evidence, and with all other witness statements, and yet they completely contradicted each other, the only conclusion to draw would be that the truth is, at that time, unknowable. Therefore, neither one could be convicted of a crime.
I also think that the nature of the physical evidence in this case would make such a situation almost impossible, although it’s a situation that is relevant to other cases. Most often, it makes “date-rape” cases extremely hard to prove.
I rarely analyse suspects of crime in quite such a detailed fashion. The reason this case interests me is not because of the specifics of the case, but because of the amount of people I saw calling for extra-judicial punishment of Zimmerman, regardless of factual innocence.
I believe that I should evaluate any suspects by the same standards, and I also believe that other people should do so.
By “in jail for murder” do you mean on remand awaiting trial, or having been convicted of murder? In the first instance, I presume him innocent, and evaluate his statement against the evidence. If he were claiming he stood his ground, that evidence would need to be proof that Zimmerman did not assault him, otherwise he should not even be charged with a crime.
In the second case, presumably such evidence has already been brought before the court, and found to show beyond reasonable doubt that Martin had no claim to self defence, and murdered Zimmerman.
If it is the case that the evidence is insufficient, that he was convicted anyway, that there is evidence that the case was racially biased, and it came to my attention, I would no doubt agree with the majority of people here that it would be a bad thing. I doubt that situation would create enough discussion that I’d even notice, though.
All this assumes that Martin used proportionate force to defend himself from Zimmerman’s grab. One punch would certainly be that, following that punch up by pounding his head against the ground until he died certainly would not.
I don’t think a philosophical debate about the nature of “truth” is particularly necessary here, although if you want one I’ll certainly indulge you.
The very short version is that the objective truth of a past event is unknowable. What I am saying is that, absent evidence to the contrary, I will assume that a witness giving a statement to the police or the court is, to the best of their ability, giving an accurate account of what they saw, what they did, and why. “Truth” is a useful shorthand for that, but it’s meant to refer to their subjective truth.
Good questions, by the way. I hope I’ve answered them well.
That you are scared does not give you the right to attack someone.
I’m not happy with the outcome, and I consider it a tragedy. It’s a tragedy that could have been avoided by more sensible behaviour on the part of either Zimmerman or Martin. The thing is, stupid behaviour is not in itself illegal, and only becomes so if it rises to the level of recklessness. Attacking someone is illegal.
At the moment, the evidence shows that Zimmerman did nothing reckless, and Martin attacked Zimmerman. This makes Martin responsible for what happened.
Martin’s death was a tragedy, but it’s one he could have avoided by acting differently. Abandoning the law, and attempting to punish Zimmerman even if he’s not broken any law, would be a far greater tragedy, and would put everyone in danger. That’s why I will argue as strongly as I can against it.
No, I’m not a parent. If I were, I’d like to think I could still think rationally about this situation. I would hope that my relative would not be stupid enough to attack someone simply for talking to them.
Were someone I loved to be killed in this situation, I have no doubt that my emotional response would outweigh my reason. That’s normal and natural, and why we don’t allow family members to serve on juries that can convict the killers of their relatives. Everyone else should let reason take precedence.
Nobody said he should know that Zimmerman was watch captain. He should have known from the question that his actions were viewed as suspicious in nature. He was hanging around the clubhouse at night and he ran when eye contact was made. He’s 17, not stupid. It’s an irrelevant point as applied to assault I’m just throwing it out that he had no reason to believe he was threatened by the conversation.
No, not correct. My opinion of Zimmerman doesn’t matter. It’s a legal construct that you’re innocent until proven guilty. I don’t accept it beyond what is legally required.
They you have a court case with contradictory stories to sort out and hopefully additional evidence that supports the truth.
Yes
The same process applies. Evidence is measured against what was said.
Who is talking about “the truth”? There seams to be a theme among those against Zimmerman that anybody defending his case believes his story or is presenting evidence as fact. His case is defended based on the law and the evidence known to date. It involves applying evidence to what what was said.
That’s true.
If that scenario is what happened, you’re absolutely correct.
Maybe because no one has offered any evidence that he had ever talked to a police officer, let alone been a suspect in a crime?
Why would I assume he had experience anyway? Most teenagers have never had brushes with the law. When you were 17, had you experienced cops pulling you over for “fitting the description”? Were you ever taken in for questioning or used to fill a line-up?
The same evidence = the same witness testimony, the same injuries (except for a dead Zimmerman and alive Martin), same 911 recordings.
The evidence that we have now–independent of Zimmerman’s supposed account–tells the exact same story that it does in the parallel universe where Zimmerman is dead and Martin is sitting in jail. Every piece of information that could tell us if Zimmerman was a good guy or a bad guy in this situation is either completely unknown to the public or doesn’t exist.
To believe Martin or Zimmerman equally would mean you’d choose to believe whomever is lucky enough to be able to tell the story–regardless of their credibility or the plausibility of their story. It would be more reasonable to take an agnostic position or–as you’ve said–to evaluate the facts on the ground and base an opinion from that. But since the facts in this case, as we have them now, do not definitively point to either one of them being a bad guy, I don’t know how people can be so confident about anything, let alone Zimmerman’s innocence. Coupled with the fact that the state has undisclosed evidence that he wasn’t a good guy, I’m especially puzzled by all the defense for the guy. He’s no different from any other crime suspect that we see on the six o’clock news and never think twice about, and yet some voices are acting like it’s a tragedy that he even has to defend himself. Do ya’ll have some information that the rest of us don’t have?
You have a habit of imagining what other people think.
This is a prime example of the above. You imagined what Steophan thinks. In no response from Steophan or anybody else has there been any suggestion that anybody is HAPPY with the outcome. Your remark was foolish and insulting.
I think what is happening is that people are extrapolating from my saying that Martin is responsible for the actions that lead to his death, to my thinking that he deserved to die, and that I’m happy about it.
Which is not true. His death was a tragedy, and the fact that he could have prevented makes it more of a tragedy.
This is completely ridiculous. Why should Martin be expected to know how suspicious he must have looked, when he wasn’t doing anything wrong…but Zimmerman is excused from considering how HE must have looked, following someone first from a car then on foot…when he knew the target he was pursuing knew he was being pursued…and after he had been told that what we was doing was not helpful? The guy is 28-years-old, not stupid! 17-year-old is often the very definition of stupid, but based on the facts that we have on the table, what Martin was doing before he encountered Zimmerman was not stupid at all. It is not stupid to look pensively at houses while talking to your girlfriend on the phone. It is not stupid to wear a hoodie in the rain. It is not stupid to be outside at night, carrying Skittles and iced tea in your pocket.
It’s not even stupid to be suspicious of someone and make a call to 911. But everything else Zimmerman did after that? Stupid, stupid, STUPID!
We can play the “stupid” game all day, and I guaran-damn-tee that Zimmerman will lose all rounds. But stupid is not illegal nor is it deserving of death. So it is a waste of time and brain energy to keep laying blame in this way. Especially since we don’t have the facts we’d need to have to do this anyway.
Monstro, I can’t stress this enough. It’s not a function of believing his account on it’s face value. It’s a function of proving guilt.
You’ve stated that the facts don’t definitively point to either one of them being a bad guy. It is not necessary to have a good or bad guy in this situation. The word “tragedy” seems the best word to describe it. The trial is not a judgement of good or bad. it’s a determination of fact based on the evidence and it starts with a presumption of innocence. The state has to prove Zimmerman did not have reason to fear for his life.
I disagree, hanging around a closed building at night and then running when you make eye contact with someone is suspicious. I think Martin understood this on some level. The question was clear enough.
Again, I disagree. Keeping Martin in sight was the best way to direct the police when they arrived on the scene. I’ve done this in my own neighborhood recently. In fact, I made a point of going over the information when the police arrived so there was no misunderstanding with what I originally reported.
My problem with presuming Zimmerman’s innocence (which is not a standard the public is expected to be held to) is that it is predicated on Martin’s “guilt”. Which is why you, Steophan and Magiver, are intent on finding fault with what Martin did. You can’t have one without the other.
But there is no fault to find, because we don’t have enough information to do this. We can’t find fault with Martin pummeling Zimmerman because don’t know what Zimmerman may have done to provoke this behavior (we don’t even know that Martin “pummeled” him). The only “evidence” we have to determine Martin’s “fault” is whatever Zimmerman says. Do you not see the problem with accepting the word of the person who has the most vested interest in swaying your opinion? Even if Zimmerman was 100% honest, his story would still hinge on his subjective perception of events. He could say he didn’t brandish a weapon, but maybe Martin saw the outline of it through the shirt, which Zimmerman would have no way of knowing. Maybe he told Martin, “You don’t belong here!” and Martin heard him say, “I’m going to kill you!” We have no way of knowing any of this.
We are being asked to not only judge Zimmerman but to judge Martin, and not based on the physical evidence but on Zimmerman’s (supposed) account. I don’t have enough information to judge Martin as being anything other than a regular law-abiding citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong that night. There are some things that make Zimmerman’s supposed story unlikely, but even I have to admit they don’t definitely point him out to be a cold-blooded killer. My verdict? As of right now, I don’t have enough information. What this means is that I don’t have enough information to judge Zimmerman as guilty yet. But that doesn’t mean I think he’s innocent. Especially since the state has evidence that I am not privy to and he has already admitted to killing the guy. I don’t have enough information to lay blame on ANYONE, either Martin or Zimmerman. Presuming Zimmerman’s innocence means that I have to presume something about Martin. I don’t like presuming. I like knowing. Believing Zimmerman =! knowing.
I don’t feel guilty at all for taking this position, because I think it is quite reasonable and fair.
Your position, Steophan? It presumes Martin was at fault that night. That’s a huge leap to make given the facts we have.
Wow, you really and truly don’t get it. This is frustrating. Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is. They don’t have to prove Martin guilty of a crime to exonerate Zimmerman. They only have to prove Zimmerman committed a crime to convict him.
Yes it’s implicit that getting beaten by Martin is the trigger for Zimmerman to be fearful but the case is about ZIMMMERMAN.
I don’t consider there to be any great doubt that Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground, and continued to fight him for some time afterwards, and was seen to be on top of Zimmerman during this fight.
Whether Martin was committing a crime by doing this is irrelevant, what matters is whether he inspired a legitimate fear of death or serious injury in Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was unable to escape due to Martin being on top of him, he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence even if he was the original aggressor.
As Magiver said, Martin is not on trial here. There’s no need to presume innocence, as it doesn’t affect anything, and there are no statements from him to doubt or believe.