AFAICT, that history consists of shooting Martin in self-defense and later having two girlfriends accuse him of violence and then recant. Is that the “long and varied history of violence” we are to discuss?
Let me just remind everyone what you guys are arguing…
So, people accuse Zimmerman of threatening them with guns, but that’s no evidence that he may have done so to Martin. And yet, Martin is suspended because of possession of marijuana, and therefore he is a violent thug who most likely assaulted Zimmerman for no reason.
And your opinion of Zimmerman and Martin has nothing to do with the race of either individual.
The only appropriate response does not belong in this thread.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21362950#post21362950
No, Martin is a violent thug for smashing Zimmerman’s face with his fist, climbing on top of him, and bashing his head into the concrete. That’s pretty much the very definition of “violent thug”, irrespective of his drug use or other petty crimes.
If we had some evidence that those actions were in response to an “imminent use of unlawful force”, I’d probably feel differently, but we don’t, so I don’t.
Zimmerman is a violent thug for following, shooting, and killing Trayvon Martin. That’s pretty much the definition of “violent thug”, irrespective of his history of engaging in other violent thug-like assaults. It’s also pretty much the definition of “murderer”, even if the only witness is dead so he got away with it.
But in Zimmerman’s case, we actually do have some evidence that his actions (well, the shooting at least) were in response to Martin’s “imminent use of unlawful force”. In fact, we had a trial, and a jury examined the evidence in detail, and that’s the conclusion they reached. That’s the difference. That’s why he’s not a “murderer”.
You may find him morally repugnant for defending himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it.
As I recall the case, there had been a number of breakins in that area- where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain- by young, tall men wearing dark hoodies. I think they were also African American, but I haven’t checked in awhile. Martin also had veered from the well-lit foot path.
Recalling that it was dark (hiding Martin’s youth) and that they were unknown to each other, why is it unreasonable for a watch captain to have concern even if not officially on-duty or patrol or whatever he was?
Yes, it was suspicious of Zimmerman to follow from Martin’s POV. That doesn’t mean that Martin had a right to initiate a physical confrontation.
Zimmerman has a specific concern. Martin has a general concern. Neither party is in the wrong to be suspicious, though.
This didn’t occur in a vacuum, don’t be disingenuous by artificially restricting the context.
Zimmerman was reckless to pursue- not legally wrong, but unwise. Martin was unwise to use physical violence on a man who had a concealed carry- and there’s two interpretations on that:
- He saw the gun and felt threatened, this requires Zimmerman to not use it and allow himself to be beaten up, and potentially requires Martin to approach a man he’d successfully avoided that he was already afraid of?
- He did not see the gun and saw someone he could be reasonably certain he could essentially just beat up
Considering that he did have delinquency issues (he was with his father due to discipline issues), and there is a history that can be seen as glorifying either the use of physical force or violence- I seem to recall he was involved in some kind of wannabe MMA group?- the second proposition seems more likely (which does not make it incontrovertibly correct). Add to that that I myself am male and was once 17, and had unpleasant separations from a girlfriend I was angry about, and yeah, testosterone’s a hell of an aggression enhancer. Seems more plausible to me.
Now, that’s plausibility. The fact that there is ambivalency is precisely why it went to a damned trial.
Also, calling him a child is disingenuous- a 12 year old (like the pictures initially released in a manipulating manner) would have been a child. He was man-sized and man-strong in the dark. We don’t expect 17 year olds to make all adult decisions- but we let them serve in the military and hold-jobs. That’s at best a half-child, half-adult. Emphasizing “child” is an attempt at character assassination or argument invalidation by innuendo, and is frankly a sleazy tactic.
He handled the lead-up in a stupid manner, regardless of whether once in the situation he was justified.
I agree, not a first-degree murderer. I would’ve been happy with 2nd or 3rd degree manslaughter (unintentional death resulting from negligence, there’s absolutely nothing saying Zimmerman was out “looking for a kill”) for his part in the unnecessary confrontation.
But yeah, once he was on his back having his head slammed into the ground by someone in a superior position, utilizing a firearm is the definition of self-defense. It’s whether the proceeding actions necessitated the confrontation in the first place. Since you need a torturous narrative with a lot of presuppositions and speculation to create one, whereas you have a quite plausible case of a young man who was angry doing something stupid and aggressive that requires no additional narrative, it seems the more likely case.
You still haven’t made a convincing argument as to why Martin would attack Zimmerman unprovoked. Actually, you haven’t made an argument at all, because apparently if you DID I would find it “disgusting”. Until you make such an argument, I’m not buying the idea that Martin randomly attacked Zimmerman, considering Zimmerman’s troubling history of gun related violence and his reckless behavior in this case.
So no, I don’t believe Zimmerman was “defending himself”.
He *refuses *to make such an argument. Perhaps because there isn’t one to be made?
Zimmerman didn’t identify himself. If he had walked up to Martin and said, “hey, I’m with the neighborhood watch, there have been some robberies recently, what are you doing out here?” That would have been one thing. Instead, he approached Martin and demanded to know what he was doing, with no explanation. He also didn’t respond to Martin asking why he was being followed. If Zimmerman had said, “I’m following you because we had some break ins in the area. Do you know anything about that?” Then death could have been avoided.
If an armed man walked up to me and demanded to know what I was “doing here”, with no explanation, I too would feel very threatened, and I’m not even black.
There were lots of points at which a different decision by either party would have resulted in a non-fatal outcome (just like in the other story from the OP). That doesn’t transform the justified self-defense shooting into something unjustified.
Not legally, no.
If you knew he was armed, which is questionable because it was a concealed carry and Martin felt safe punching him. I rather think he didn’t see the gun or he would have been more cautious.
There also wasn’t a lot of time allowance for either to answer the other’s questions. I agree, Zimmerman <I>should have led off with identification as a neighborhood watch member</I>, but not doing so doesn’t justify physical assault.
Martin wasn’t wrong to feel he was being followed, but initiating violence is reckless. It should not have killed him, but he died over it, because once he was using potentially lethal force (head injuries are exactly this) Zimmerman was legally entitled to respond with a weapon if he had one- which he did.
You’re assuming that Zimmerman, the same guy who threatened his ex wife, currently estranged wife, girlfriend, and random driver with his weapon. This whole scenario flips on it’s head if Zimmerman threatened Martin, too, and while there is no evidence one way or the other (certainly not so much evidence that youh could convict Zimmerman without reasonable doubt), I still have not heard a single convincing argument as to why Martin would assault Zimmerman unless such a threat DID occur. The only person who made an argument was Shodan, and his argument was that we know Martin is violent because he is a “No Limit Nigga”. You can read my Pit thread to see why I reject that argument. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why Martin, with no histoiry of violence, would do such a thing?
I don’t feel the need to make “a convincing argument as to why”. I don’t care nearly as much why he attacked Zimmerman as that he did. You seem to think his motive is the make-or-break point here. It’s largely irrelevant in my eyes. Unless there’s some evidence that he did so in response to an imminent threat (and there’s not) then it was unjustified.
Because those of us who aren’t coming into this under the presumption that Martin was guilty see that Zimmerman’s story (and your story) is full of holes. The biggest hole is the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked.
But fine, let’s go at it your way. Zimmerman’s motive is unknown, but doesn’t matter. The end result isn’t WHY he killed Trayvon, it’s that he did.
See? Not nearly as nice. “But there’s evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense!” You cry. Fine, you’re right, but there’s also evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman in self defense. Namely, the stalking, the presence of Zimmerman’s firearm, the historical context in which a black man being stopped and questiokned by an armed white man is occurring. Martin had every right to fear for his life, and he acted in self defense.
(post shortened)
I’m not surprised.
If you want to focus on the morality of it, the moral of this story is “don’t punch people in the face and bash their head into concrete. It might get you killed (and your killer off scot-free)”
Another moral of the story could be "don’t follow suspicious people. It could get you into a heap of trouble and cause major repercussions throughout the rest of your life (nutjob trying to murder you, scrutiny of your past and future decisions, etc) even if you are fortunate enough to survive.
I’m going to violate Godwin’s law, and point out that some people didn’t believe in the Holocaust because it hadn’t happened before.
Zimmerman has no physical evidence of initiating violence (ie, evidence of punching). Martin does.
There’s no need for a narrative as to why Martin did. If no-one ever did anything they hadn’t done before, no-one would ever learn to even walk or talk.
There are two scenarios by your post for how Zimmerman could have threatened him:
- Drawing and showing him the gun. This requires Zimmerman to allow himself to be beaten and potentially permanently injured (brain damage is no joke) before shooting Martin, and Martin to disregard the gun in his hand in favor of bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground, potentially life threatening attack. This . .more than stretches credulity to believe. It’s possible, but if so it was extremely stupid, and requires you to believe Martin was extremely stupid.
- Showing him the holstered weapon. This requires Martin to recognize a holstered concealed carry (not impossible) and decide the correct response to seeing a man was armed in a state with concealed carry laws that he (Martin) had lived in his entire life was not to engage in conversation, but engage in violence, and not only violence, but again violence that put Zimmerman in danger of death or permanent brain damage. Without the gun being drawn, mind, which means Martin was not in imminent danger (which I think the law requires to justify such use of lethal force)?
Can you not see how neither of those scenarios helps your case that Martin was in the right to initiate violence?
“the historical context” does not give rise to a reasonable belief that he was facing an imminent use of unlawful force. It’s doubtful that Martin was even aware that Zimmerman was armed prior to punching him in the face. So what are we left with? That Zimmerman followed Martin? That’s legal and doesn’t justify violence.
And Zimmerman’s motive is not “unknown”. The bloody evidence was all over his head. That was his “motive”.