At the end of the day, whatever the legal results are, George Zimmerman behaved incredibly foolishly, arrogantly, and dangerously, and ended up killing a young man who in no way whatsoever deserved to have his entire future taken from him, no matter what.
No. Matter. What.
So to watch so many people be SO interested in making that boys death acceptable is profoundly sad. Because it wasn’t alright at all.
I’m not pretending it’s not a tragedy, and that different actions by either of them could have avoided it.
However, if Martin did launch an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was in genuine fear of death or serious injury, then Martin’s death is acceptable by the standards of Florida law. If it is in fact the case that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and bashing his head against the ground, his death was acceptable by any reasonable standards. Not desirable, not fair, but acceptable - because the alternative is to expect people to take an unprovoked beating that may leave them dead or paralysed.
If it did happen in this manner, Martin is not the victim of a crime, Zimmerman is. This is why I want to make his death acceptable - so that, if I’m the victim of a serious assault, I am free to defend myself without fear of criminal charges. Something, sadly, I am not where I live.
This thread isn’t the place for a debate about the morality of self defence, or for that matter of verbal provocation. It’s also not the place for a discussion of whether Florida law fits with anyone’s idea of that morality. If you want to start a thread about that, I may well participate, if it’s a general debate and not another attempt to vilify Zimmerman.
There is so much wrong with what you’ve said here it needs to be pointed out. First, nobody is bending over backwards to defend Zimmerman. It’s been done on a factual basis given what has been made public. But that aside, it’s disturbing that you dadgum guarantee how other people think. This illustrates the disconnect between emotion and reasoned thought. Nobody has suggested that Martin deserved to be shot. You have created a mental strawman and then gone on to display dismay at your own conclusions.
I’m not seeing any “dispassion” at all. It takes some guts to say that the appropriate behavior, when approached by a stalking stranger who may or may not be flashing a weapon, is to be polite, courteous, and amenable. That’s ludicrous.
If this had been a different neighborhood, Zimmerman had been the suspicious “outsider”, and Martin had been the one on the prowl, would anyone be clucking their tongues if Zimmerman had taken a defensive stand? No. Martin would still be the “thuggish punk” and Zimmerman would be the good citizen minding his own business. If more people were like Zimmerman, there would be no “thuggish punks”. Rinse and repeat.
If you (yeah, you) found yourself in a strange neighborhood, approached abruptly by someone who’s been following you and you’ve been actively trying to get away from, would you be polite? Would you be able to arrest your alarm system and not think either “Run for your life!” or “Punch and RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!” Doesn’t it depend on what that guy says or how he looks? What if you see the outline of his gun and his body language is clearly menacing? How can you know how you’d handle yourself in this situation? How can anyone? We don’t know enough about what happened. We don’t have enough facts.
A person who is detached says, “You know what? I’m not going to issue any judgment about anyone until we can learn more details. I’m not going to try to explain Zimmerman’s side or try to make his story make sense, and I’m not going to paint the victim as a saint either.”
This is what a detached person does. They don’t consistently defend one side, scolding only the posters who they don’t like.
There is no “detachment” here. Everyone has staked out a camp. Every time a person mentions Martin’s naughty past or argues about what demographic he falls in or criticizes him for behavior that they don’t even know he exhibited, they are issuing a judgement. And that’s perfectly fine. Just be honest, for pete’s sake.
Add yourself to the list of people who create a mental strawman of others in order to wring your hands in dismay.
Hey, wait. I am certain I provided a cite for this claim in the first IMHO thread, and you were in the thick of that discussion. Is my memory deceiving me? You really don’t recall an ABC news story that explained the charge was expunged?
Also I recall a discussion of how low on the totem pole a magistrate in Virginia is. I recall explaining that until relatively recently, a magistrate in Virginia did not even need a high school diploma. Apart from his status as an ex-magistrate, which confers about as much status as being the assistant dogcatcher, is there something else about Zimmerman Senior that makes credible the idea that he could pull strings?
And weren’t you part of that earlier discussion about magistrates in Virginia? Again, I could almost swear you were, but maybe I am confused. Were you?
Stoid, nothing I have ever said or done here should lead you or anyone to the conclusion that I want to make Treyvon Martin’s death acceptable.
It was a horrible, horrible tragedy.
But I haven’t seen enough evidence to make me believe it was a criminal act in the state of Florida.
I hope you, and all other readers, can see the profound difference between these two things.
No, everyone has not staked out a camp. There are those who think Martin shouldn’t have died and therefore Zimmerman is guilty and there are those pointing out the current level of information is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. They are not exclusive of each other but one is an emotional debate and the other is a legal debate.
NOBODY thinks Martin DESERVED to die. That’s different than saying he could have brought about his own death because of his actions. It’s like saying he shouldn’t have died from a bear attack even though he provoked it.
Excuse me. But I can show you lots of posts in which I have criticized posts, and posters, that were supporting Zimmerman. Have you seriously not seen any of them?
How bizarre. Why do you think she’s pointing fingers at you?
I think you have shown the ability to see both sides of this thing, as it were. At least in this thread, you are trying to view this thing as fairly and reasonably as you can, IMHO.
But do you notice that there are some posters here that the same can’t be said for? I’m not asking you to name names or strike them down with your mighty sword. But I’m tired of people pretending that they are the lone champions of justice and rationality. I’m tired of it being the SAME voices telling them they are full of it.
I have never pretended to be unbiased. I am trying to keep an open mind, but I am not ashamed of saying I think Zimmerman’s story is incredible enough for me to want this thing to play out in front of a jury. I don’t understand why people can’t be just as open about their beliefs and stop with the objective and rational pretense.
Please see my earlier post. Don’t make me retract it!
Because of this line: “Everyone has staked out a camp.”
Thank you. That means a lot to me, and I really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Oh, no argument there. No argument at all.
But that’s the thing. We have absolutely no reason to think he provoked it. Absolutely none.
And yet people are saying things about Martin that sound pretty much like, “Punk kid deserved it.”
If we had found his body out in the woods, torn to shreds by a bear, who would think, “Mmm, I wonder what he was doing to make that bear get 'em?” We would say, “We should get that bear so this doesn’t happen to someone else!”
It just so happens that the bear in this situation can speak. I do not feel any strong inclination to believe the bear’s crazy-sounding story at face value. And while I understand that other people may not be as cynical as I am, I don’t like my own integrity questioned. I am not a member of a mob. I want Zimmerman to have a fair trial and to be treated with the same respect that we are supposed to treat all defendents. But I am not a member of a hysterical lynch mob just because I have suspicions. And I’m not ashamed for having these suspicions either. As long as I’m open to hearing his side, I’m being fair. I don’t have to pretend that I am something I am not in order to weigh in on this case in an intelligent manner.
I quite agree. You are however excluding a rather large middle between that and launching an unprovoked attack on the person following. Not stalking, as has been repeatedly pointed out that refers to a series of acts that cannot possibly have happened between two people who have only just come into contact.
Martin would have been well within his rights to walk (or run) away, to ignore Zimmerman’s questions and stay where he was, or to answer in any way he chose, including telling him to fuck the fuck off. Just not to launch an unprovoked attack. The sensible thing to do would be to answer his question honestly, but as has been repeatedly stated no-one is required to act sensibly.
If it had been that way round, I doubt news of the case would have spread far, and I suspect some people would have had different views. That’s irrelevant to the case at hand, though.
I know I wouldn’t launch an unprovoked attack on them - and someone following me and talking to me is not provocation.
It’s entirely possible (for me anyway, perhaps not for some others here) to observe the facts dispassionately whilst not being detached from the result. Perhaps that’s because I care more about the process of law being followed than about any of the people in this case.
Zimmerman may be factually guilty. Even if he is, if the state can’t prove that beyond reasonable doubt and he is found not guilty, the system has worked as it should.
Speaking of memory, I thought you said we shouldn’t treat anything reported in the news as fact. I’ve seen conflicting reports about these charges, so I don’t accept as truth that they were expunged unless thats being quoted by an official.
If the two previous arrests were both expunged, can you explain how they could be included as exhibits in Zimmerman court records? Based on what you wrote earlier, these charges shouldn’t be admissible evidence. If they were expunged, my understanding is that these records shouldn’t even exist, period. And yet as big as day, they do.
You can’t on one hand say you want him to have a fair trial and be accorded the respect due to a defendant, including the presumption of innocence, and on the other call his story “crazy-sounding” when it is consistent both internally and with the facts that have been made public.
You may not have prejudged Zimmerman as a murderer, but you have prejudged him as a liar.
Presumption of innocence applies to the court of law, not the court of public opinion.
Unless you’re the type who goes around calling OJ innocent because he was acquitted, surely you know this already.
As a person that is not involved in any way in this case, I am perfectly free to make judgements about the defendent. I am not being asked to issue a verdict in this case, as either the judge or jury member.
This means I can use my brain and evaluate a story any way I choose to. If someone says that a three-eyed pirate told them to kill their baby, I do not have to wait for forensics evidence to tell me to think, “Hmm, that seems kind of crazy and far-fetched!” Judging is what human beings blessed with brains do. And that is why being on a jury is very hard. Aren’t we lucky we haven’t been asked to be on the jury?
I am skeptical of lots of things. When someone starts off an excuse by saying, “See what had happened was…”, my gut says they are about to lie to me. But I usually hear them out and listen to what they have to say. When Zimmerman’s surrogates say he got out of his car to check a street sign, my gut says he told them a big ole lie. But I am willing to hear what he has to say. That is how I operate.
You can scan my posts all the way to the beginning of this thing and see that I haven’t issued any judgments about Zimmerman’s guilt.