How is Mason1972's example worse than the Zimmerman shooting?

[Shodan]

@Babale

Yes, because he FELT THREATENED by the armed man who was stalking him and now demanding to know why he was here, in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, acting suspicious in no way, aside from daring to be black. And when this armed man made these threatening remarks to Martin, he proceeded to defend himself, quite effectively. That’s why he punched Zimmerman and had grass stains on his knees. Because he was defending himself. If I was being followed by an armed man, I would defend myself too.

It sounds like you think Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before the fight started, and that was why Martin felt threatened. If so, it presents some problems, like
[list=A][li]How did he know that? And especially[/li][li]If he knew it, and was a few steps away from the safety of his own living room, why would he double back, seek out the armed man, and confront him, if he felt so threatened? That doesn’t sound like the actions of someone who feels threatened, and it certainly isn’t the best course of action to take. As turned out to be the case.[/list][/li]

So now you’re saying that when Zimmerman is on patrol, all the shady black kids better get indoors and hide themselves, because if they run into *George “Batman” Zimmerman, First Lieutenant, Neighborhood Watch, *then he can question them for their suspicious behavior?

I don’t think you quite understand the legal situation. It isn’t just neighborhood watch people, and it isn’t only black people.

You can stop someone on the street and ask them what they are up to. That’s legal. The person you stop is entirely justified if he [list=A][li]gives you a detailed account of his movements for the last 24 hours, complete with Powerpoint slides[]tells you to go piss up a rope []walks away without saying anything []attempts to recruit you for an Amway dealership, or []recommends you attempt sexual congress with a juniper bush.[/list]Attacking you and breaking your nose and bashing your head on the ground - not so much.[/li]

How come no one is questioning Zimmerman for HIS suspicious behavior?

As I recall, there was a trial. ISTM that there were a good many questions asked about his behavior. The upshot of which was that it was not possible to show beyond a reasonable doubt that any of his actions were against the law.

Regards,
Shodan

[Babale]

@HurricaneDitka

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?

Nope, he probably just menacingly showed his holster to the poor kid, thinking this would coerce the uppity darkie to cooperate. Trayvon got scared and started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, trying to prevent him from drawing his weapon. He failed to do so.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Babale

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.

I can see why the shooting happened too. I’m trying to figure out if we agree on what happened before I worry about why it happened. And you keep using language that only shows one perception of events; I’m taking issue with that.

@Babale

Of course the police should have determined this.

Awesome; we agree.

@Babale

How do you propose they do so, in this situation?

Via a different method than the one that ended up with a dead law-abiding homeowner.

@Babale

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.

Sounds like 100% bad policing. The officer had no idea who he was looking for, what the situation was, who might be inside, who might be armed, etc. He just charged in without knowing anything about what he was doing; that should be criminal negligence, IMO, at the very least.

The way you write it, tho, it comes across as more attempts to justify the shooting. The officer didn’t know those things? Well, Mr. Black didn’t know he was being told to drop his gun. Why is the officer’s life more valued than the law-abiding homeowner’s life? Which of the two had a sworn responsibility to uphold the law, and had training and testing with a firearm? Why is the officer allowed to take significantly less responsibility for this event than the deceased?

@Babale

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.

Again you try and justify the shooting.

@Babale

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.

Holy fuck now you’ve actually gone and blamed the victim! :eek:

@Babale

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.

There was no way to know it was just a flashlight, either. Or that it wasn’t a banana with a flashlight on top of it. Or a banana on top of a flashlight. There’s no end to the list of things that it might have been.

@Babale

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 think it confirmed that the cop did pretty much everything wrong.

[ElvisL1ves]

@HurricaneDitka

Could you explain your theory to me again, because it’s a bit bizarre from my perspective?

It’s already out there, and not just by me. You could scroll up. Any apparent bizarreness is your own problem.

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?

Take a look at a photo of Zimmerman and comment upon his apparent physical fitness, please.

When you come up with a Zimmerman-exculpating theory of your own that isn’t “laughably implausible” or “bizarre”, or for that matter one that even exists, do please let us know, will you?

@Babale

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.

Many of us have thought so since the first news reports came out.

[HurricaneDitka]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s already out there, and not just by me. You could scroll up. Any apparent bizarreness is your own problem. …

Who else, besides you, thinks Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when Martin and Zimmerman had their brief conversation before Martin started the fight? AFAICT, you’re the only one.

@ElvisL1ves

… Take a look at a photo of Zimmerman and comment upon his apparent physical fitness, please. …

I’d call him “out of shape”

@ElvisL1ves

… When you come up with a Zimmerman-exculpating theory of your own that isn’t “laughably implausible” or “bizarre”, or for that matter one that even exists, do please let us know, will you? …

I don’t need a theory to exculpate Zimmerman, I have the fact that TM attacked GZ.

@ElvisL1ves

… Many of us have thought so since the first news reports came out.

And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

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.

It’s not an assumption; it’s a conclusion based on the evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

[Babale]

[quote=“Shodan, post:81, topic:825614”]

It sounds like you think Martin knew Zimmerman was armed before the fight started, and that was why Martin felt threatened. If so, it presents some problems, like
[list=A][li]How did he know that? And especially[/li][li]If he knew it, and was a few steps away from the safety of his own living room, why would he double back, seek out the armed man, and confront him, if he felt so threatened? That doesn’t sound like the actions of someone who feels threatened, and it certainly isn’t the best course of action to take. As turned out to be the case.[/list][/li][/quote]
I don’t think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon “was doing” on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself.

I don’t think you quite understand the legal situation. It isn’t just neighborhood watch people, and it isn’t only black people.

I don’t give a crap about the legal situation. This is like the Confederacy thread all over again. “Well, if you don’t recognize the right to rebel, you’re still part of England!”. That’s not the point! The point is that George Zimmerman was an evil fuck who followed a black kid around just to scare him and show him his place, and ended up killing that kid when he tried to defend himself. Whether Florida law allows Zimmerman to do this is irrelevant. Don’t legal threads go in IMHO? If I wanted legal advice, that’s where I’d post.

[Quote]
You can stop someone on the street and ask them what they are up to. That’s legal. The person you stop is entirely justified if he [list=A][li]gives you a detailed account of his movements for the last 24 hours, complete with Powerpoint slides[]tells you to go piss up a rope []walks away without saying anything []attempts to recruit you for an Amway dealership, or []recommends you attempt sexual congress with a juniper bush.[/list]Attacking you and breaking your nose and bashing your head on the ground - not so much.[/li][/quote]

And you don’t understand that we convey meaning in many ways, not just the specific words we choose. If Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon was doing here in a particular way, it could be construed as an implicit threat. Because we know Zimmerman was armed, and because we know of his peculiar history, I think it’s very likely this was the case. No, not beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, but this is the SDMB, not the Supreme Court. And the “Zimmerman scares Trayvon who believes he is defending himself” explanation makes way more sense than whatever legendary explanation you and HurricaneDitka refuse to share with us, but is apparently along the lines of, “Trayvon couldn’t contain his lust for blood any longer, spurned by marijuana and spray paint fumes, so he attacked Zimmerman to satisfy the hunger”

[Shodan]

@HurricaneDitka

And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.

Aided and abetted, in at least one case, by the very news organizations themselves.

Regards,
Shodan

[Babale]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Via a different method than the one that ended up with a dead law-abiding homeowner.Sounds like 100% bad policing. The officer had no idea who he was looking for, what the situation was, who might be inside, who might be armed, etc. He just charged in without knowing anything about what he was doing; that should be criminal negligence, IMO, at the very least.

The officer had no idea that the criminal was dead already. He went into a house, which was filled with debris due to the entry of a criminal just before. He had to go in right away – or should he have stayed outside and tried to ascertain information? What if the grandpa didn’t wake up because of his deafness, and the intruder was in the process of killing the kid, and the police had stayed outside to try and determine what was happening (do you have an actual suggestion of how they would go about this?) for an extra five minutes, during which the kid had his throat slit?

The way you write it, tho, it comes across as more attempts to justify the shooting. The officer didn’t know those things? Well, Mr. Black didn’t know he was being told to drop his gun. Why is the officer’s life more valued than the law-abiding homeowner’s life? Which of the two had a sworn responsibility to uphold the law, and had training and testing with a firearm? Why is the officer allowed to take significantly less responsibility for this event than the deceased?Again you try and justify the shooting.Holy fuck now you’ve actually gone and blamed the victim! :eek:
There was no way to know it was just a flashlight, either. Or that it wasn’t a banana with a flashlight on top of it. Or a banana on top of a flashlight. There’s no end to the list of things that it might have been.I think it confirmed that the cop did pretty much everything wrong.

You’ve admitted that you haven’t watched the video, and aren’t going to. And yet, you make these blanket statements that are easily contradicted by the footage. I am not one to justify police shootings. But in this case? I don’t see what the else the cop could have done.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

It’s not an assumption; it’s a conclusion based on the evidence.

Funny that you talk endlessly about no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman, but you’re perfectly happy to make horrible conclusions against a dead black child that was unable to speak out and defend himself and was never even charged and prosecuted in a court of law.

And your argument doesn’t even require this ghastly and unnecessary cruelty to the dead and his family. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. I can’t even conceive of why someone would insist on it unless they were just interested in slandering dead black youths.

Uggh. I guess we can’t even expect decency towards dead children and their families any more.

[Babale]

@iiandyiiii

Funny that you talk endlessly about no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman, but you’re perfectly happy to make horrible conclusions against a dead black child that was unable to speak out and defend himself and was never even charged and prosecuted in a court of law, just based on whatever.

And your argument doesn’t even require this ghastly and unnecessary cruelty to the dead and his family. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. I can’t even conceive of why someone would insist on it unless they were just interested in slandering dead black youths.

Because he had SKITTLES! And a watermelon-flavored drink that ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT iced tea! Oh, and on occasion, he smoked some marijuana.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Babale

I don’t think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon “was doing” on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself. …

I don’t know why you use the word “likely” here. It’s a fine theory (that GZ threatened TM with his gun), but without any evidence to support it.

Let me invite you to think through an alternative scenario. Imagine if GZ begins to question TM and TM, instead of attacking him, decides to choose one of Shodan’s other options, perhaps B, C, or E. What do you think George Zimmerman’s likely response would have been? Do you think it “likely” that he would have shot Trayvon Martin in the back as he walked away?

[Babale]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t know why you use the word “likely” here. It’s a fine theory (that GZ threatened TM with his gun), but without any evidence to support it.

Let me invite you to think through an alternative scenario. Imagine if GZ begins to question TM and TM, instead of attacking him, decides to choose one of Shodan’s other options, perhaps B, C, or E. What do you think George Zimmerman’s likely response would have been? Do you think it “likely” that he would have shot Trayvon Martin in the back as he walked away?

I think Zimmerman was looking for trouble, and determined to find it (this fits his pattern, of looking for trouble and finding it in a bunch of other cases, already cited). So, if he gave Zimmerman any non-compliant response (“none of your business”, “fuck you, man”, “I could ask you the same question”) I think that Zimmerman would have escalated the situation until it ended in violence, since that was what he wanted. I don’t think he wanted to KILL anyone, but he wanted a fight, and he was gonna make sure that he was packing heat when he got in one.

If Trayvon told Zimmerman the truth – that he had gone to the store and was now on his way to his girlfriend’s father’s house – I doubt that Zimmerman would have believed him. After all, he had no reason to think Trayvon was being suspicious (aside from Trayvon’s race), yet he did; he would have no reason to think Trayvon was lying, but he still might. Maybe Trayvon would have survived. Why the fuck does his life depend on doing whatever Zimmerman wants, again?

If Trayvon bowed his head and showed Zimmerman that he knew a black man’s place in Florida, then he probably would have been just fine.

Our society wouldn’t be, though.
EDIT: To address your questioning of the word “likely” – there’s plenty of evidence, such as Zimmerman’s past behavior, and his behavior since the killing. For example, he seems to be pretty proud of the fact that he auctioned off the gun he used to kill Martin, and brags (to the point of lying, apparently) about how much it sold for.

[Shodan]

@Babale

I don’t think he knew Zimmerman was armed until Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon “was doing” on a public street, and at this point Zimmerman likely threatened Trayvon with the gun, likely without actually drawing it but showing that it is in his possession. Fearing for his life (reasonably, as turned out to be the case) Trayvon defended himself.

Since you think it’s likely, there must be some evidence to establish it. What is that evidence?

Don’t legal threads go in IMHO? If I wanted legal advice, that’s where I’d post.

This is GD, where we argue based on facts and evidence and logic. Where is your evidence? You just think so? Then it does belong in IMHO.

And you don’t understand that we convey meaning in many ways, not just the specific words we choose. If Zimmerman demanded to know what Trayvon was doing here in a particular way, it could be construed as an implicit threat.

What a reasonable person would do in that situation is the standard. “He asked me what I was doing in a scary way so I bashed his head in” is not what a reasonable person does.

And the “Zimmerman scares Trayvon who believes he is defending himself” explanation makes way more sense than whatever legendary explanation you and HurricaneDitka refuse to share with us…

That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG? If I were afraid of someone, and I managed to escape him, why would I seek out the danger again?

"I’m scared of that white guy! I am almost safe - should I walk in the door?

Nah - that would be just what they’re expecting! Instead, I will go looking for the white guy, so I can be scared some more, and then if he has a gun, I can defend myself against his extra-special scariness!"

Ooooookay then.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

@HurricaneDitka

Who else, besides you, thinks Zimmerman had his gun in his hand when Martin and Zimmerman had their brief conversation before Martin started the fight? AFAICT, you’re the only one.

What matters is that he made Martin think so, right? Made all the easier by the fact that he did have a gun.

I’d call him “out of shape”

And therefore it was easy for someone *in *shape to get on top of him, right? But that’s “bizarre” to you.

I don’t need a theory to exculpate Zimmerman, I have the fact that TM attacked GZ.

But you refuse to say what made him do it. It’s as if you don’t have any idea, isn’t it?

And many have been desperate, ever since those first news reports, to try to cram the facts of this case into the racial narrative they so badly want it to be.

Sometimes the facts are as inescapable as the conclusion, aren’t they? No effort need be made to tell it the way it happened.

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG?

We don’t know that he did that. It’s one possible interpretation of the evidence presented, but not the only one. It really is ghastly that you’re so willing to slander a dead child without anything close to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when your argument doesn’t require this in any way at all.

[Shodan]

@Babale

I think Zimmerman was looking for trouble, and determined to find it (this fits his pattern, of looking for trouble and finding it in a bunch of other cases, already cited). So, if he gave Zimmerman any non-compliant response (“none of your business”, “fuck you, man”, “I could ask you the same question”) I think that Zimmerman would have escalated the situation until it ended in violence, since that was what he wanted.

According to Dee Dee’s testimony, Martin was the first to speak when he confronted Zimmerman. Martin said (according to Dee Dee) “what you following me for?” and Zimmerman replied “what are you doing around here?” whereupon Martin attacked. So Martin was the one escalating right from the get-go.

Regards,
Shodan

[Babale]

@Shodan

Since you think it’s likely, there must be some evidence to establish it. What is that evidence?

Zimmerman’s behavior before and after the killing. For example, how proud he is of the weapon he used to kill Trayvon.

This is GD, where we argue based on facts and evidence and logic. Where is your evidence? You just think so? Then it does belong in IMHO.

You still haven’t explained why you believe Trayvon would attack Zimmerman if he didn’t feel threatened by him.

What a reasonable person would do in that situation is the standard. “He asked me what I was doing in a scary way so I bashed his head in” is not what a reasonable person does.

So, let me describe a scenario. Monica is in line for the restroom at a bar. A man approaches her, looks her up and down, licks his lips, and then says, “You’ve got a real purty mouth…”. She maces him. Still as ridiculous? Or do you realize that “He complimented me in a scary way!” could actually mean “What he said was technically a compliment, but he was ACTUALLY implying that he wanted to rape me”? Because “What are you doing here?” when said to a black man can mean “You came to the wrong neighborhood, n…” and, based on his behavior before and after the incident, is pretty fucking clearly what Zimmerman meant.

That goes back to what I asked earlier - if Martin was so afraid of the scary fat white guy, why, instead of going into his own living room, did he double back and seek out the said SFWG? If I were afraid of someone, and I managed to escape him, why would I seek out the danger again?

"I’m scared of that white guy! I am almost safe - should I walk in the door?

Nah - that would be just what they’re expecting! Instead, I will go looking for the white guy, so I can be scared some more, and then if he has a gun, I can defend myself against his extra-special scariness!"

Ooooookay then.

Regards,
Shodan

@Airbeck

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”.

[HurricaneDitka]

@ElvisL1ves

What matters is that he made Martin think so, right? Made all the easier by the fact that he did have a gun.

You’re avoiding the questions. I can understand why though. If I made arguments as convoluted as yours, I’d probably try to pivot away from them with phrases like “What matters is …” too.

@ElvisL1ves

… And therefore it was easy for someone *in *shape to get on top of him, right? But that’s “bizarre” to you. …

I already explained to you which part of your theory I found bizarre, and this wasn’t it. Try reading my post #80 again, this time for comprehension.

@ElvisL1ves

… But you refuse to say what made him do it. It’s as if you don’t have any idea, isn’t it? …

I have no clear evidence on his motive. It could have been any one or a combination of a great many things. Speculating without evidence would invite charges from iiandyiiii that I’m “slandering” Martin.

[Babale]

@Shodan

According to Dee Dee’s testimony, Martin was the first to speak when he confronted Zimmerman. Martin said (according to Dee Dee) “what you following me for?” and Zimmerman replied “what are you doing around here?” whereupon Martin attacked. So Martin was the one escalating right from the get-go.

Regards,
Shodan

It seems to me that if I was walking around and minding my own business, and someone had been following me, it would be reasonable to confront him to try and find out why he was following me. It also is perfectly reasonable not to go into your home and LET THE STALKER KNOW WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. You’re right, in a perfect world, Trayvon would have called the cops on Zimmerman. But there are plenty of reasons for a black teen not to trust the police.

Your own post shows the ridiculousness of your theory. You imagine Martin was so triggered by Zimmerman asking “what are you doing around here” that he snapped and attacked? Isn’t it more reasonable (especially considering what we know about Zimmerman) that he asked this in exactly the threatening sort of way I’d described, leading Trayvon to try and defend himself?

Or is Zimmerman beyond reproach, and we only need to question the motives of 17 year old black men?