Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Stoid]

Steophan, you always find fresh and sparkly ways to blow my mind. And while that has it’s own entertainment value, to be sure, it would also be nice if now and again you actually bothered to read.

[QUOTE=Stoid]
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.

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!
[/QUOTE]

@Steophan

I’ll volunteer to be one of them. Is your contention that the belief that self defence is reasonable is a peculiarly American thing?

So you believe you qualify to be one of the fresh, clueless minds with zero knowledge of the case who will examine the evidence for the single, specific inference that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin… which, isolated as I propose, has nothing to do with self-defense at all?

So how exactly do you manage to pick up just enough to post a response that has some vague association to my post, but still manage to miss every aspect of it that actually matters? You do it so consistently one wonders if it’s actually a feature, not a bug.

See, it’s this exactly which makes your view of anything virtually worthless. Not because you are personally worthless, not because you don’t have fundamentally reasonable ideas about various topics generally, but because you have demonstrated a relentless indifference to taking in any actual information. And I’m not just referring to the way you barely take in posts of mine you still choose to respond to, or skip cites, but anything, and everything. It appears from your responses and positions that you skim whatever it is you “read” to find phrases or sentences that you think are all that’s necessary to have a solid grasp on the content as a whole, and on that basis can offer a cogent response. You’re the classic case of “don’t bother me with the details”.

Which would be fine, I suppose, if details didn’t matter, but they do.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

See, it’s this exactly which makes your view of anything virtually worthless. Not because you are personally worthless, not because you don’t have fundamentally reasonable ideas about various topics generally, but because you have demonstrated a relentless indifference to taking in any actual information.

No, quite the opposite. It’s precisely because I have taken in the information about this case, about Florida law and the particular circumstances, that have made me able to see what’s happened, and indeed what made me change my mind about it as the facts emerged.

I’ve tried to look at it with an open mind, and I’m of the opinion that looking at such a different legal system and cultural situation than I’m used to actually made that easier, as there’s far less cultural baggage or direct personal connection to the case.

The irony of you saying you want people to judge what happened based on your selection of the evidence, when you’ve been threadshitting all over the trial thread with your speculations based on inadmissible evidence is not lost on me.

Quite why you think English speaking Europeans wouldn’t have heard of this case, or why they wouldn’t understand the standards of evidence in play, eludes me.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Quite why you think English speaking Europeans wouldn’t have heard of this case, or why they wouldn’t understand the standards of evidence in play, eludes me.

Why you think this even though it’s wrong does not elude me at all; see previous post.

[camille]

@Steophan

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.

I’m sorry I didn’t see this before posting. Thank you for a serious answer.

You may not have armed watchmen, but I’m sure there is no shortage of lunkheads, hotheads, and wannabes (how many UK slang words for idiot are there?). What good could come from arming these types of people, that wouldn’t be outweighed by tragic stories like the Zimmerman-Martin scenario?

I can understand the frustration and feelings of powerlessness in the situation you describe, but I must admit it saddens me that instead of dreaming about living someplace where you wouldn’t need a gun to defend yourself, you’re going with the “Wild West” fantasy. Be careful what you wish for, is all I can say. Have you ever spent any significant time in Florida?

[Human_Action]

@camille

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.

Zimmerman says this was framed by Martin approaching him and asking if he had a problem, Zimmerman replying “No, man, I don’t have a problem with you” or words to that effect, and Martin saying “You do now” and throwing the punch. So, if we take Zimmerman’s word for it, Martin was unequivocally hostile, not reacting to a sudden move.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

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”.

You’ve lost me here…that’s not the way Martin would have acted? How can you possibly claim to know a thing like that with such confidence? It “just wouldn’t be met with a face punch”, you say. What reasoning leads you to that?

I would say trying to grab someone you think might be suspicious, when the police are a couple minutes away and will call you when they arrive, meaning that all you have to do is keep the guy in sight and you’ll nab your man violence-free is “not the way people act”. Even if you’re certain that Zimmerman was following Martin after the point where he stops in the NEN call, the leap to “I have to physically restrain this guy!” is still a huge one.

@Stoid

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?

No. A hand on the shoulder or arm isn’t indicative of the imminent use of unlawful force. No one can be injured or otherwise harmed by a hand on the shoulder. A punch, on the other hand, is intended to injure and shouldn’t be used lightly.

[Human_Action]

@Tollhouse

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…

Which post was it where I said walking in the rain was cause for being killed, or even suspicious? I honestly forgot. I’m sure you’ll let me know soon.

[camille]

@Human_Action

Zimmerman says this was framed by Martin approaching him and asking if he had a problem, Zimmerman replying “No, man, I don’t have a problem with you” or words to that effect, and Martin saying “You do now” and throwing the punch. So, if we take Zimmerman’s word for it, Martin was unequivocally hostile, not reacting to a sudden move.

No. Read the transcripts. Interviews and Statements. Even the interviews with his father mention this point. Here is one example, from the Hannity interview:

HANNITY: What happened next?

ZIMMERMAN: He asked me what my problem was.

HANNITY: Expletive problem?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket — because that’s where I keep it out of habit — it wasn’t there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

(my bolding)

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

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?

Let’s see…the locations of the shooting, Martin’s phone, Zimmerman’s keys and flashlight, and his other flashlight; the NEN call, Ms. Jeantel’s statement, other witness statements, Zimmerman’s statement…that’s off the top of my head.

[Steophan]

@camille

I’m sorry I didn’t see this before posting. Thank you for a serious answer.

No problem. I probably deserved the snark, that’s why I added the serious answer.

You may not have armed watchmen, but I’m sure there is no shortage of lunkheads, hotheads, and wannabes (how many UK slang words for idiot are there?). What good could come from arming these types of people, that wouldn’t be outweighed by tragic stories like the Zimmerman-Martin scenario?

I’m actually more concerned with the lack of a decent right to self defence than the specific means available to do it. Ultimately, I don’t think arming a mainly unarmed society is plausible, as people simply don’t know about guns, and gun safety. I’m sure I don’t, and I doubt I would consider myself a safe gun owner without a lot of training and education.

However, whilst I agree Martin’s death is a tragedy, had Zimmerman not been armed, and had he been beaten to death, it would have been a greater one.

I can understand the frustration and feelings of powerlessness in the situation you describe, but I must admit it saddens me that instead of dreaming about living someplace where you wouldn’t need a gun to defend yourself, you’re going with the “Wild West” fantasy. Be careful what you wish for, is all I can say. Have you ever spent any significant time in Florida?

I don’t actually dream of being armed, or of leaving where I live now, and indeed I doubt I will. Certainly, if magically all guns could be destroyed, and specifically those belonging to criminals, then I’d be delighted to live there. But, if I lived somewhere that criminals were routinely armed as opposed to occasionally, and where I could legally arm myself, I can’t think of any reason not to - assuming I could get the necessary training and education to do so safely.

Complete aside - I’m actually strongly interested in both the fictional and real Wild West, and in terms of violent gun crime, the real one was probably closer to where I am that many parts of modern America.

To get back on topic, if I actually thought Zimmerman had been roleplaying Wyatt Earp then I’d have a very different opinion of this case, but the evidence suggests he was using his gun as a last resort.

[Human_Action]

@camille

No. Read the transcripts. Interviews and Statements. Even the interviews with his father mention this point. Here is one example, from the Hannity interview:

(my bolding)

I’m not disagreeing with you as such; I’m citing the walkthrough. Zimmerman relays it as Martin approaching him and asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman telling him he didn’t have a problem, then going for his phone, and then Martin saying “You got a problem now” and punching him.

So, not a reaction to a sudden move, if Martin stopped to say “You got a problem now” first.

[camille]

@Human_Action

I’m not disagreeing with you as such; I’m citing the walkthrough. Zimmerman relays it as Martin approaching him and asking him if he had a problem, Zimmerman telling him he didn’t have a problem, then going for his phone, and then Martin saying “You got a problem now” and punching him.

So, not a reaction to a sudden move, if Martin stopped to say “You got a problem now” first.

The whole thing happened very quickly. According to Zimmerman, he was replying that he “didn’t have a problem” at the same time he was reaching into his pocket. So why couldn’t Martin also be saying “you got one now” (or whatever, assuming this is correct) at the same time as he was throwing the punch? No pauses on either side.

Why would you think it is more plausible that Martin punched him for no reason? Why do you think Zimmerman (and his father) made it a point to mention “immediately” reaching into his pants pocket for a phone (and not finding it) just prior to the punch?

[Stoid]

@Human_Action

Let’s see…the locations of the shooting, Martin’s phone, Zimmerman’s keys and flashlight, and his other flashlight; the NEN call, Ms. Jeantel’s statement, other witness statements, Zimmerman’s statement…that’s off the top of my head.

I’m sorry, how does any of these things give the the circumstantial evidence you need to be able to make a reasoned inference about one thing: did Zimmerman look for Trayvon?

Zimmerman’s statement is direct evidence, not circumstantial.
The witnesses have no information about Zimmerman’s actions after the NEN call before they came together.
Where Zimmerman’s light and keys were doesn’t tell you what he did and intended to do as far as ***looking for Martin. ***
The location of the shooting doesn’t tell you what Zimmerman did and intended to do as far as looking for Martin.
The location of Martin’s phone doesn’t tell you anything about zimmerman did and intended to do as far as ***looking for Martin. ***

That’s all I’m talking about. What is the evidence that tells you one way or another if Zimmerman intended to, or tried to, or did go looking for Martin?

Not if found him. Not if Martin found him first. Not where they fought, who saw them fight, where they dropped things… None of those things can possibly tell you anything about that one, isolated issue.

Which is why I would love to put it to people who know NOTHING about the incident as a whole. Tell them the story to the point where Zimmerman hangs up on the NEN and play them the NEN call itself without telling them the slightest hint of anything at all that happens after that and ask them what they think Zimmerman did or intended to do after that call: continue looking for the kid in the hoodie? Something else?

And after they answer ask them what got them to the answer.

I would love, love, love to be able to do this, I just can’t imagine how in the age of the internet.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Stoid

Gun fans feel a loss for Zimmerman threatens gun rights, race warriors feel a win for Zimmerman is another race murder gotten away with.

I’m a “gun fan” and I know of many others, including people who drafted the self-defense laws in Florida, who have said Zimmerman acted far outside of the bounds of what gun rights and self-defense dictate. I don’t support the racial politics of the NRA or Zimmerman’s behavior in this case on a moral level, and from a “strategic” point of view I can’t think of anything worse for the gun-rights side, after overcoming all of the mewling nonsense in the wake of the two mass shootings last year, than to have gun rights advocates in general start saying they support street executions of “suspicious” people or buy into the idea that just because someone carries/uses a gun they automatically deserve my support in their further actions.

[Stoid]

@Condescending_Robot

I’m a “gun fan” and I know of many others, including people who drafted the self-defense laws in Florida, who have said Zimmerman acted far outside of the bounds of what gun rights and self-defense dictate. I don’t support the racial politics of the NRA or Zimmerman’s behavior in this case on a moral level, and from a “strategic” point of view I can’t think of anything worse for the gun-rights side, after overcoming all of the mewling nonsense in the wake of the two mass shootings last year, than to have gun rights advocates in general start saying they support street executions of “suspicious” people or buy into the idea that just because someone carries/uses a gun they automatically deserve my support in their further actions.

I’m neither as well. I didn’t mean to suggest that everyone who is a fan of guns is in agreement. Nor is everyone who hates racism in agreement. But it does define the biggest emotional investment on each side, which was the question.

[Steophan]

@Condescending_Robot

I’m a “gun fan” and I know of many others, including people who drafted the self-defense laws in Florida, who have said Zimmerman acted far outside of the bounds of what gun rights and self-defense dictate. I don’t support the racial politics of the NRA or Zimmerman’s behavior in this case on a moral level, and from a “strategic” point of view I can’t think of anything worse for the gun-rights side, after overcoming all of the mewling nonsense in the wake of the two mass shootings last year, than to have gun rights advocates in general start saying they support street executions of “suspicious” people or buy into the idea that just because someone carries/uses a gun they automatically deserve my support in their further actions.

I imagine “gun rights” people will be quite happy with laws that allow someone to shoot a person who has, unprovoked, punched them to the ground and who continues to attack them. That is, after all, the point of self defence laws, and this case is a perfect example of someone acting properly within them.

That various politicians have tried to make capital from the incident is not evidence that Zimmerman did anything wrong, legally or morally.

Please explain how shooting someone who is on top of you, attacking you, is a “street execution”. And don’t deny that’s what happened, even the prosecution have conceded that.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

I’m neither as well. I didn’t mean to suggest that everyone who is a fan of guns is in agreement. Nor is everyone who hates racism in agreement. But it does define the biggest emotional investment on each side, which was the question.

Oh, and if you dislike racism, I hope you have a problem with the racism Martin displayed, according to Jeantel. As opposed to the complete lack of racism displayed by Zimmerman, either in this incident or the rest of his life.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Oh, and if you dislike racism, I hope you have a problem with the racism Martin displayed, according to Jeantel. As opposed to the complete lack of racism displayed by Zimmerman, either in this incident or the rest of his life.

And Steophan does it again! Spots the word racism, makes assumptions, and launches!

[Steophan]

@Stoid

And Steophan does it again! Spots the word racism, makes assumptions, and launches!

I’m demolishing your foolish assumption that people are glad Martin is dead because they are racist, and emotionally involved for that reason.

Of course, I have to regularly make assumptions about what you actually mean, as you post contradictory, illogical screeds that only barely hint at coherent thought, and then ignore or avoid any clarifying questions. If you want to avoid people making assumptions about what you think, state those thoughts clearly and concisely.

[Condescending_Robot]

Read FreeRepublic lately? How about the people on this board whose opinion is “some people need killing?” The obsession with the watermelon drink? The continual resurfacing of nonsense about “lean” and street fighting? To deny that the reason people from across the country are throwing their support behind the defendant in one murder trial in Florida has a shit-ton to do with race is as willfully obtuse as…much of what Team Zimmerman believes about how head wounds work, I guess.