Wrong.
Bullshit. Anyone who stops another person in the street and asks him what he is doing is making a violent attack, and deserves to be beaten.
At least that’s what you keep saying.
You must know a lot of criminals.
Regards,
Shodan
Again, that’s NOT WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID and NOT WHAT I’M ARGUING.
So, if I have HEARD people say this, then I **KNOW **a lot of criminals?
Now I am really starting to see what** ywtf **was saying…warped.
The perps in the break-ins in Zimmerman’s neighborhood had been determined to be young black guys. So: young, black, walking slowly in the rain while talking on the phone and appearing to look into houses.
Partially, for the reason I just described. And also because he appeared to run once under observation, and because he returned to physically attack Zimmerman after he had gotten away. There was no way for Zimmerman to know as he lay knocked to the ground and being punched in the face and his head being either slammed or driven into the concrete, that the person exhibiting all this thug like behavior was just a seventeen year old kid returning from buying a bag of Skittles.
As for the rest of your post, I would think it very dangerous to offer to give any stranger a ride under circumstances which previously appeared suspicious. I myself have personal knowledge of a young couple shot to death in their car after picking up a couple of young guys they saw walking down the street at night and felt sorry for. One of the douchebags had a gun and apparently just wanted to see what it was like to shoot somebody, so, when they were being dropped off at the apartment complex where they lived, he pulled his gun and shot them both.
Then they ran off to their apartment, taking nothing and leaving the two dead Samaritans sitting in their car, which the cops found still running.
The girl was 19, the guy 20.
And I’m sure they got nice friendly smiles and perhaps a nice story when they picked up these two dickweeds.
So simply being given a logical sounding explanation in a friendly way should not mean all bets are off and it’s safe to start inviting strangers into your car.
Still, I’ve often wondered about the outcome in a way similar to yours, only in my wonderings the reasonable, rational behavior comes from Martin, who realizes that in the neighborhood he’s in, most people have cars and that a young black guy slowly walking alone at night in the rain give people pause for concern, turns to look Zimmerman in the eye, gives him a friendly smile, and in response to being asked what he’s doing, says, “Hey, no problem, man! I’ve just been up to the 7-11 to get a bag of Skittles and I’m headed back to my father’s girlfriend’s house at _____ to finish watching the ballgame. You can watch me go in if you don’t believe me.”
To which Zimmerman says, “Oh, okay, sorry. No offense, we’ve just been having some problems with break-ins around here and I just wanted to make sure who you were. Have a good night.”
See how easy that would have been? Yes, you can talk to brown people too. 
Trouble is, I realized most guys as young as Trayvon wouldn’t react to being treated with suspicion with that kind of maturity. They wouldn’t be able to see how they appeared from the other guy’s point of view. They wouldn’t know that not having a car makes them look suspicious in that neighborhood. Or that walking slowly through the neighborhood at night in the rain would make them look suspicious. I realized it would be more likely that they would simply take offense, feeling that they were being accosted simply because of their race and then react out of anger…you know, pretty much like it seems Martin actually did…and so I never posted it before.
But still, think how much differently things would have turned out had Martin only realized how his actions made him appear and he had realized it and taken pains to put Zimmerman’s concerns to rest.
I respect your honesty. I disagree with you, vehemently, but fine.
You can ignore the part about the ride: that was not the essence of what I was saying.
The point was that Zimmerman could have handled things very differently and not have acted so aggressively towards Martin.
My question to you:
Why was it Martin’s responsibility to ease the concerns of a guy who he had just described to DeeDee as “creepy”, a guy who he was scared shitless of, a guy who he had run from and continued following him, a guy who it turned out was armed?
Why?
If he ran from the 7-11 because of the rain, like DD claims, why wasn’t he at Brandi’s house. long before Zimmerman got there? Seems rather pointless to stay in the mail shed when you’re almost home. What was Trayvon actually up to?
Here we go.
Another big point that you’re missing is that Martin didn’t know who Zimmerman was.
He never identified himself as a watchman.
In my scenario, I identify myself.
Again:
Why was it Martin’s responsibility to ease the concerns of a guy (AN UNKNOWN GUY) who he had just described to DeeDee as “creepy”, a guy who he was scared shitless of, a guy who he had run from and continued following him, a guy who it turned out was armed?
Another question,** Starving Artist:**
Was there ANYTHING about Zimmerman’s behavior that night that you found as, well, ODD?
Anything?
Do you believe he acted “rationally” that night?
And Martin could have handled things differently and not behaved so suspiciously and violently toward Zimmerman.
It wasn’t actually anybody’s “responsibility” to deal with the other guy differently. It just would have been nice if either one had, because Martin would be alive now and none of this would have happened.
And how can you say Martin was scared shitless of Zimmerman when he returned to attack Zimmerman after having made it out of sight and back to Brandi’s door?
In the final analysis we have a kid who physically attacked another guy who felt he was being beaten by a full-on criminal and so drew the gun from his waistband and shot his attacker in the chest, only to find out after the fact it was a seventeen-year-old kid returning to his father’s fiance’s house to continue watching a ball game after buying a bag of Skittles at the nearby 7-11.
Everything in this entire scenario could have transpired just as it did and Martin would still be alive except for the fact that he decided to start beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman could have followed him, could have questioned him, could have appeared creepy, and Martin could have walked slowly in the rain, looked in houses, run away, disappeared, come back again, whatever…and still no one would have died.
The only reason someone died was that one of the two parties involved decided to physically attack the other one.
At the time Zimmerman found his head and face being flailed away at, he had no idea of the age of his attacker, how long the attack would last, or how far it was intended to go. For all he knew, the guy was one of the robbers and out to kill him to eliminate a witness or for fucking up their game.
So, in the midst of blows raining down upon his head and fearful of the motives of the person attacking him, he pulls his gun and shoots the guy.
And I can’t blame him. It’s unfortunate in the extreme that things turned out this way. I’m sure Martin had no idea that Zimmerman was armed, and I’m sure he meant only to deliver an ass-kicking and would have stopped punching once he felt he’d taught he opponent a lesson. But Zimmerman didn’t know all that, and from his perspective his life was in danger.
So ultimately, the reason Martin is dead is because of an unfortunate decision that Martin in his immaturity made to escalate the situation to one of physical violence.
It’s very sad. The kid didn’t deserve to die. He just stumbled into a situation he didn’t understand and reacted in a way that worked against him as badly as it possibly could have. It’s a terrible shame. But it isn’t Zimmerman’s fault.
-
How do you know this? And he did describe Zimmerman as ‘creepy’ according to DeeDee. i actually didn’t know this until recently.
-
Only reason? Only? you mean NOTHING else you examined you think went into this? Nothing??
-
It is Zimmerman’s fault. ALL OF IT.
I also want to add something;
Even if what you said were HYPOTHETICALLY TRUE, that doesn’t mean he won’t be charged anyway.
Your conclusion #3 is supported by the study in your link, but other studies have reached opposite conclusions. See, e.g., “More Guns, Less Crime,” Lott, University of Chicago Press, Third Edition, 2010, ISBN 978-0-226-49366-4 (note that only the third edition examines SYG laws’ effects).
The study in your link does not appear to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal – has it?
Given the existence of countervailing studies, I am afraid I don’t agree with your last paragraph. It seems clear that a person can believe these laws have a salubrious effect by relying on reason, and peer-reviewed study.
What parts of his hearing testimony do you picture as being admissions?
It’s been an entire semester since Evidence, but wouldn’t it be a hearsay exemption under ‘An Opposing Party’s Statement’? An exemption treated very broadly.
True. But the mere fact that evidence meets the requirements of an exception to the hearsay rule does not necessarily mean it is admissible as evidence (quoting State v Lopez).
I grant this seems to be an issue of first impression in Florida, but the entire per-trial hearing is a judicially created procedure to effect the legislature’s decree that a person who uses force in a justified setting is immune from criminal prosecution. It’s not clear to me why the accused would have to waive his Fifth Amendment trial right to not testify in order to benefit from the judicially-created per-trial hearing.
I do think, though, that this discussion would be easier if we had some hypothetical examples of the hearing testimony.
Is Nana gonna be OK? She must miss you terribly.
Well for starters you just got done presenting a scenario where Martin is expected to explain himself. And you’re presenting this based on earlier accusations of racism as if such an atmosphere wouldn’t add to the negative connotation of such an exchange.
But to answer your question, it’s Martin’s responsibility to not assault someone who asked a simple question. He started the confrontation and from all the evidence available went out of his way to do so.
And you keep posting statements you can’t back up. There is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow him when asked not to. He was still on the sidewalk when the fight started. There is no indication from Martin’s conversation with Dee Dee that he was scared shitless of Zimmerman. In fact the opposite can be said because he approaches Zimmerman during the phone call to the police. This is not the behavior of a scared-shitless person. It’s the behavior of an aggressive person. Now apply that behavior to the verbal exchange started by Martin and look at the end result.
While the definition of “creepy” is “strange and slightly frightening”, it appears that TM approached GZ. The two met and enaged in conversation, something along the lines of, “What are you doing here?” and “What are you doing here?” TM then began beating GZ. (Unless you have some testimony or evidence to the contrary, of course.)
If TM had kept his hands to himself, he would probably (unless he’d decided to attack some other armed stranger since then) be alive today. There is no law against asking someone why they are in your neighborhood or why they are anywhere. You could answer the question or you could ask your own question or you could ignore the question. You could walk away, call for assistance, make a phone call, or cry for help. What you can’t legally do is punch someone for asking you what you are doing there. It’s also illegal to beat someone who’s lying on the ground but it’s still only one attack/assult/beating.
GZ has a right to defend himself against attack. GZ has the right to use lethal force against someone who, GZ believes, is currently trying to murder him or cause him great bodily harm.
I’m just going to respond to this bit. Again, what you feel is irrelevant, and “feeling” that someone has committed a crime is an almost meaningless statement, unless you’re psychic.
You either think the evidence shows that they’ve committed a crime - in which case the onus is on you to provide that evidence - or you don’t, in which case you should think he’s innocent.
No feelings involved.
MY GOODNESS.
For the third time, please look up the definition of the word “feel”.