Yes, as I’ve said about a dozen times, we are talking about the moral right and wrong. I realize that by Florida’s laws Zimmerman got off Scott free. The case has been closed for years. In my eyes, Zimmerman is still morally equivalent to a murderer.
And by the way, if Zimmerman, say, showed Trayvon his gun in a threatening manner while asking him What he was Doing, then that WOULD justify self defense, but since Zimmerman killed Trayvon I’ll guess we’ll never know.
You weren’t talking about “the moral right and wrong” when you wrote this:
Don’t bite my head off for correcting you when you make a factually-wrong legal claim.
People keep interpreting “right by my father’s house” to mean that he was literally right in front of the door to the house when he said that to his girlfriend. The location of the shooting is also “right by” his father’s house. It was only a couple hundred feet away. My parents back yard is 350 feet long. If I’m all the way in the back of the yard and a friend calls and asks where I am, I’m going to say I’m at my parents house. That doesn’t mean I’m literally arm’s length from the front door.
To use that statement as rock solid evidence that he turned and went back to confront Zimmerman is not reasonable. Yet to Zimmerman defenders this is absolute proof of Martin’s bloodlust and intent to attack. He could have been standing right where the confrontation ended up occurring when he said that he was “right by my father’s house”.
You asked why he was defending himself, not whether he was hitting Zimmerman.
What that evidence tells me is that Zim was smart enough to not divulge his racism on the recorded 9-1-1 call.
We don’t know, and will never know, why Martin went back.
(post shortened)
Facts are facts.
If the media couldn’t/wouldn’t provide the facts, or the whole truth, it makes one wonder what other facts they couldn’t/wouldn’t provide the public. Were they simply reporting a story incorrectly, or were they stoking the flames in order to boost advertising revenue?
What a load. Arizona is a brand most readily associated with bottled iced tea. They apparently also make fruit beverages without tea. The idea that reporting “a bottle of Arizona brand iced tea” instead of “a bottle of Arizona brand fruit juice” serves some nefarious greedy media narrative is just fucking asinine.
Do you feel people should have a legal obligation to walk away from a potential crime if they are able to do so? Or should they legally be allowed to stand their ground if they choose to do so?
If some stranger follows you home for no apparent reason, do you just go inside and hope they go away?
I remember at the time there was some discussion that reporting the flavor of the beverage would reinforce some racial stereotypes, and perhaps the media was misreporting it to avoid accusations of racism. Personally I think plain-old incompetence is the more likely explanation.
What “potential crime” are you talking about here?
If the only controversy in George Zimmerman’s life was the Trayvon Martin case, maybe I could buy what the Zimmerman apologists here are peddling but, unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth.
George Zimmerman’s many, many controversies since the Trayvon Martin case.
Instead, his life has become a series of public controversies that seem to imply he wants the nation to remember the very reason he gained infamy in the first place or, perhaps, that he suffers, at best, from a case of impaired judgement. Now that he has the media spotlight, he hasn’t let go of it, despite receiving “death threats,” as he told WOGZ.
Nah, he didn’t stalk and murder an unarmed Black kid because he is a piece of racist scum. Race had nothing to do with it. 
Then you must have some other, by your definition plausible, theory as to why Martin jumped him. You’ve been asked repeatedly, now what is it?
According to his testimony, Zimmerman had lost track of Martin, which is why he was still standing so far from the Martin residence. According to Dee Dee’s testimony, Martin went back to confront the (derogatory term) following him. Martin approached Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Martin lost that fight.
Snowboarder Bo, I don’t see how my position is ambiguous. This guy shouldn’t have been shot, because he intended no harm to the police, and would have caused no harm to the police had he not been shot. However, I can see why the shooting happened.
Of course the police should have determined this. How do you propose they do so, in this situation? They came into the door, and saw a man holding a gun. While pointing a gun at him, they demanded he lower his weapon. He didn’t hear them, which is why he didn’t do so, but they had no way to ascertain this at the time. What do you suggest that they should have done? The man was in the next room over, and debris is blocking the door making it difficult to approach the man. He is clearly holding the gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other – but because of the dark surroundings it’s hard to tell in the video WHAT he is holding in the second hand, just that light is coming from it. I suppose the officer thought it was a gun with a flashlight on its end. The man raises the flashlight and points it right at the officer, at which point the officer shoots.
I don’t disagree, but at the same time, when you bring a gun into your home, you assume certain risks. The largest, of course, is that you or a loved one will accidentally kill or harm yourself or one another using the gun.
You also take the risk that, in a moment of depression or hopelessness, you or a loved one will make an irrevocable decision that you’ll regret – while this can happen even if you don’t have a gun, having a gun makes it much more likely that a snap decision will turn into action.
And you also take the risk that you’ll be seen carrying that gun in a moment like this and be shot by the police. If you have a disability that makes it more likely that you will ignore police instructions to lower your weapon, maybe you shouldn’t own a gun.
The pro-gun crowd will point out that owning a gun allowed him to save his grandson, and this is true. But owning a gun also got him killed, and statistically, the second is much more likely to occur.
None of this justifies the shooting. But it explains it.
He did. I watched the video a few times and basically – he enters view, stepping into a doorframe that leads out of the next room. The officers are standing one room removed, there’s a cabinet that fell in the closest doorway, so they haven’t entered the room that the victim is now standing in.
He is halfway through the doorframe, clearly holding a gun in his right hand. You can tell he’s holding something in his left, but because the light is coming from it, it’s hard to tell what.
He looks over at the officers, sees them, and, while he doesn’t move his gun hand (the gun is held in front of his stomach, pointing down) he snaps his other hand to shine the flashlight directly on the officer.
There’s no way for the officer to know that this is only a flashlight, and not a pistol with a light on it. There’s no way for the officer to know that the man won’t shoot as soon as he’s lit up his target. So he acted, and shot the man.
It was tragic. It’s terrible that an innocent man was killed. But based on the events that occurred, the actions of the victim – even if totally understandable from his perspective – led to the equally understandable action of the officer in shooting the victim.
This is why I’m in favor of bodycams on all police officers. In this case, I think it cleared the cop of any wrongdoing.
I answered to the best of my ability here:
Stupid kids do dumb things, oftentimes without having a clear idea why they are doing them.
I doubt me speculating on his motives would do anything but inflame people here, so I’ll politely decline.
The media had access to the crime scene photos. Rather than report the fact, or the truth, the media chose to report a rumor. You may find that acceptable. I don’t.
Not so fast. If the theory that seems obvious to most of us is “laughably implausible” to you, what to you IS plausible? You don’t have anything to offer, do you?
If that puts your attempt at victim-blaming in the shitter where it came from, well, that’s what we’re here for, you’re welcome.
That was part of a longer sentence. That longer sentence was my theory as to what happened, which I provided in response to you asking me… what my theory was. The full context was:
If my theory were correct, and Trayvon had seen the gun in Zimmerman’s possession, then when Zimmerman started questioning him in this way, Trayvon would have realized that he could not be expected to escape, since his assailant was armed. As such, Stand Your Ground laws would apply.
However, since Zimmerman successfully killed Trayvon, we’ll never get to hear his testimony as to whether Zimmerman’s weapon entered the equation, and so will never be able to prove self defense.
You’ve been asked repeatedly for your theory. Why do you think Trayvon would suddenly attack Zimmerman?
I don’t even know how to respond to this.
I’m starting to think that Thing Fish is right, and that the answer is that Trayvon’s race is all the motive he needs.
It’s sad, but not surprising, to continue to see so many Dopers perfectly willing to shit all over a dead child based on assumptions (i.e. that he followed and attacked Zimmerman out of the blue) that we couldn’t possibly know with any accuracy better than a guess.
Could you explain your theory to me again, because it’s a bit bizarre from my perspective? Here’s what I’ve gathered so far: that you think GZ confronted TM, gun drawn, surly, and menacing, and began interrogating him. TM, in fear for his life, attacks GZ. GZ (and this is where your theory gets particularly implausible in my eyes) allows TM to break his nose, knock him down, straddle him, beat his head on the concrete for a bit before deciding, finally, to shoot TM with the gun he has held in his hand this entire time. Is that right?