Seize on my rhetorical device and pretend that’s my argument. Wow!
I’ve never written that Zimmerman was pummeled 30 times (in fact, just, what, Tuesday or Wednesday I told you I accepted the pathologists’ conclusion of 4-6 or so). No idea what you mean about dragons.
If you’re ready to explain your theory that Zimmerman was lying to the NEN dispatcher about knowing the address where his truck was parked, that’s fine. You never answered my follow-up questions about that.
Me too! High five!
Shit, who’s saying that? Lemme at 'em! I sure don’t believe that! But I do believe that Martin was justified in acting out of fear, for sure.
I don’t accept 1 or 2 and I don’t think anyone believes that I am on Team Zimmerman. Not even the “Team Zimmerman” that I think of when I think of Team Zimmerman: buncha folks who are, in classic right-trending fashion, extremely fear-based, forming the prism through which they see the world and distorting it. But I do respect the fact that the feelings and fears are genuine. It just makes me sad and frustrated.
Hey, common ground at last, during closing arguments.
You can start with Tollhouse and Mr-Pookie, just in the last 3 pages or so.
When you say acting of fear…say, hypothetically, Zimmerman and Martin end up face-to-face, by whatever means. Martin says “Why are you following me?”, Zimmerman says “What are you doing here?”
Martin punches Zimmerman in the face. Justified, or not?
Er, ok. I don’t see a common psychological thread, myself, but rather multiple strains of thought at work on both “sides”.
But that’s the purpose of evidence, especially circumstantial evidence. Apply logic and reason and human experience to the circumstantial evidence to draw reasonable inferences. In your scenario above, there is good evidence to draw reasonable inferences which answer some “ifs”; The logical and reasonable inference to be drawn from the actual evidence available specifically indicates that Zimmerman almost certainly continued to look for Martin. And that is, as I think you realize clearly, extremely important to determining blame, which is why we’ve seen such pretzel logic trying to say the reverse.
But if it were possible at this point to separate the evidence for that proposition alone from the rest of the case and present it to fresh, clueless minds and ask them to tell us what they would interpret it to mean, I’d put good money on a very significant majority saying that it means Zimmerman definitely continued to look for Martin.
I wish we could do that test. Find some Europeans who’ve never heard of any of it and lay out the parts I’m talking about to see what they would say.
If anyone can get us a test group of say, 12 people living in foreign countries who speak English fluently (it matters very much because the evidence is in English words…translation could skew results) but have zero knowledge of this case in the remotest way…let’s do it!
A fundamental difference in your and my constutution is whether, and at what point, we are willing to state, “There simply isn’t enough raw evidence to draw upon to reach anything that can be called Truth”. Yes, evidence coupled with logic, reason, and inference can yield solid conclusions. But when the evidence doesn’t point to any one conclusion more strongly than a multitude of other, equally plausible conclusions, it’s fine; shoot, in a legal system it’s laudable to admit: there’s just no way to prove any one conclusion.
We don’t need to re-hash this all unless you want to; suffice it to say that the inferences you’ve drawn are not the only reasonable ones, and I’d even say that the other inferences are more reasonable in some cases.
Just one example: “These assholes always get away.” Vow to apprehend Martin, or grousing at the dispatcher to send someone quickly? There’s no reasonable inference that proves one over the other.
Another: Zimmerman’s keys and flashlight. Sign that the fight started at the T, or sign that there was a prolonged pursuit that ran north to the T, then back south to where the shooting occured?
And I’d bet money that a majority would say that they couldn’t be sure either way. The false-consensus effect is thus in play for both of us: we both think our ideas are reasonable ones that other people would have.
The presentation could also skew results. But, if you’re able to arrange something like that, let us know the result.
Beats the hell out of me. All I know If I am walking home at dusk and notice some dude following me in his car, I’ll make a quick assessment if I can get behind closed doors fast enough or if my best chance is to confront the MF the best I can. Fight or flee; no other choice.
Mind you, I’ve been in that situation before – about four years ago I was between my garage and the house and noticed a guy following me into the parking area. I faked opening the door to get in my apt but instead I tackled him from behind, no questions asked, he tried pulling out a filed-down screwdriver, a shiv, broke two knuckles in my right hand but beat the crap out of him. Called the cops, they took over from there. Went to trial six months later, didn’t even bother taking a lawyer with me – he had three, one got thrown out of court for “improper” insinuations, the other two were utterly useless. Guy got three years in the brink.
No “standing your ground” laws here – just plain common sense. Would that Trayvon had at least a bat on him…that would have given him a chance to be alive today.
You left out something crucial. Before the punch, Zimmerman, ignoring a request for an explanation, reached for his phone. This is according to his own testimony - not speculation.
I would argue that a sudden move to a pocket, in the dark, in that contentious situation, was the trigger for Martin. He was reacting to a threatening move.
Ask any cop if they wouldn’t perceive a move like that as threatening. People have been shot by the police for making a move like that, regardless of what they were actually reaching for. Ask Amadou Diallo (not that you can, because he’s dead; but it was a wallet). So it doesn’t matter if Zimmerman was reaching for a phone or a gun. The move itself - in that situation - was threatening.
No.
Also extremely unlikely because it’s not the way people act. Even street punks, if you want to believe that’s what Martin was. That response from Zimmerman just wouldn’t be met with a face punch at that stage, at least not without some kind of street punk comment with it, like “fuck you man”.
So here’s mine:
Hypothetically, Zimmerman and Martin end up face-to-face, by whatever means. Martin says “Why are you following me?”, Zimmerman says “What are you doing here?”
Martin gives him a look like “oh, you obviously are just some uptight asshole and I don’t have to justify myself to you”, sort of waving him off with that kind of “fuck you, man” gesture and turning away to head back to his Dad’s.
Zimmerman reaches out and puts his hand on Martin’s shoulder or arm as he’s turning away to keep him from leaving.
Martin whirls around and punches him.
Justified, or not?
Yesterday I gave a ride to someone and was waiting in my car for almost an hour. In that time I saw, ( Magiver, steopan, human action…hold on for this one)…but I saw a handful, seven or eight people, taking a walk! And it was even lightly raining…one young couple even, gasp, meandered a bit and then stood around for maybe fifteen minutes in front of a condo…i was wondering what the hell is going on, who are these hoodlums taking a walk, an older man was walking a dog but Im sure the dog had a bag of pot hidden in its doggie sweater, im sure that man was a drug dealer…then two women walking for no goddamm reason. I waited and waited for a fat guy to chase them with a gun and shoot them in the heart but alas, no fat man ever did so. Im nervoys now knowing that apparently there are people in my hood who sometimes take a walk…Im sure they must be hoodlums especially based on the fact they would dare not drive a car, and well, there was some precipitation. Edit: Was glad no fatman chased them with a gun because he thought they looked suspiciois for walking…
Keep in mind I’m only talking about one particular thing: did he continue looking for Martin.
What do you consider to be the evidence from which one would draw a conclusion about this fact, if they could?
Why has this case blown up? What sets it apart from the countless other gun homicides that makes people so emotionally invested?
Because it is not crystal clear to the vast majority of people exactly what really happened, therefore it looks mostly like one of two very different things happened, and either way the story itself smacks right into both racial and gun politics, which themselves are brimming with emotion.
Gun fans feel a loss for Zimmerman threatens gun rights, race warriors feel a win for Zimmerman is another race murder gotten away with.
But you’re leaving out the part where Zimmerman goes into his pocket.
As for the way people act: I’m not a street punk, but as a high school teacher, I’ve both witnessed and heard about plenty of street fights. Anyone who is at all wise to the street would know better than to make a move like that, knowing how it could be interpreted. Zimmerman himself as much as admitted that he was aware of fronting and street signals, when he said that Trayvon “put his hand into his waistband” so as to “intimidate” him.
In any case, the fact that your scenario is as implausible to me as mine is to you is why Zimmerman should/will be acquitted, regardless of agreeing about his stupidity and moral culpability: We can’t agree on exactly what happened.
I’ll volunteer to be one of them. Is your contention that the belief that self defence is reasonable is a peculiarly American thing? It’s not - I am my cite.
It’s bordering on excessive force, but probably just within the bounds of acceptability.
You conveniently missed the part where he continues attacking him, which is not in any way justified by your hypothesis, and indeed, by trapping Zimmerman, allows him to shoot.
Because it’s a clear case of self defence, and people who refuse to look at the facts are calling for an innocent man to be punished, and the judicial system, shamefully, has gone along with that for political reasons.
You know how I know that? Because the original investigator of the incident said so, and also said he was pressured into changing his mind, and because of the pathetic lack of case brought by the prosecution.
How many armed neighbourhood watchmen have you got over there in the UK?
Not enough.
Actually, more serious answer. The city I live in has, quite famously, had a gun crime problem in the last 15 years or so, although it’s calmed down recently. However, living through a period where one knows that local thugs may well be armed, and you cannot be, is not particularly comfortable. There was an armed siege on my road a few years ago, which was not fun.
Not that I think legalising guns here will ever happen, or that it would work if it did, due to the cultural difference, but I guarantee you if I ever lived somewhere guns were both legal and used by criminals, I’d get one and learn to use it.
Quite apart from that, the right to self defence here is ridiculously limited. The legal level of force is “minimum necessary”, and in my opinion, expecting someone who’s being attacked to calculate that is disgusting, as is criminalising anyone who defends themself.
:rolleyes:
Your wishes and hopes don’t count as a comparison. In other words, you got nothing.
I’ve got an understanding of Florida law, and the evidence in this case, which is all that matters to see that Zimmerman is not guilty. You are quite correct that what I want has nothing to do with it.