And the wounds on Zimmerman’s head and Martin’s hands.
A reasonably prudent person might conclude that it was one possible motivation, and act accordingly. But ‘act accordingly’ means get-away-from-the-stranger-that’s-following-you, NOT attack them. I’m reasonably confident that, for example, if Martin had been armed, and had shot Zimmerman dead rather than punching him, he could not have adequately explained to the authorities and a jury how Zimmerman’s actions up to that point justified the use of lethal force. They simply did not, unless you are inventing actions by Zimmerman out of thin air, without any evidence.
Again, if Martin was afraid for his life, why did he double back and confront Zimmerman? According to Dee Dee’s testimony, Martin told her that he and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other, and Martin was “right by his father’s house”. Yet Martin went back looking for this person who was supposedly so scary.
According to the transcript of Zimmerman’s call to the NEN operator, Martin was walking along looking into houses in the rain, in a neighborhood that had had IIRC eleven break ins and a shooting in the past year. That’s why they had the meeting to set up a neighborhood watch, and why Zimmerman became the neighborhood watch.
Strangers wandering the neighborhood looking into houses isn’t proof of anything, but in a relatively high-crime neighborhood like this one, it can be seen as suspicious. IIRC the last time Zimmerman spotted anything like this, it was a burglary in progress, or at least so one of his neighbors reported it as being.
That doesn’t mean Martin turned around and went looking for Zimmerman – “right by” could be anywhere from next to it to a half-mile away.
And it doesn’t excuse Zimmerman for following Martin against the operator’s recommendation.
IMO this doesn’t excuse Zimmerman for following Martin, and doesn’t reduce the chances that Martin might have felt legitimate fear for his life.
I’m not certain about anything related to this case, but based on Zimmerman’s own testimony, IMO he behaved very immorally and greatly increased the chances of an unnecessary conflict.
[ol]
[li]Trayvon deserved to be shot to death because he beat his armed stalker/killer. [/li][li]Castile ‘earned his bullet’ because his stalker/killer gotten scared.[/li][/ol]So my question, to HurricaneDitka, is if there exists any situation were killing a black child/man is verboten?
I assume your dream scenario would exist only in the realms of a thought experiment where certainty is 100%, the victim has zero agency, and the killer’s intent is clear.
I imagine I’d think they were priceless, like most parents. But in a litigious society, we’re required to make value judgements by attaching a dollar figure to things like lives and limbs.
I see I am not the only one having a hard time keeping all these cases of slaughter straight in my head. Someone ought to produce signs “Justice for ________” with the blank area being suitable for erasable markers.
Do you have any examples at all where someone said they were “right by” some place when they were half a mile away?
Dee Dee said that Martin and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other, and Martin was close enough to his father’s house that he no longer felt the need to run. The attack did not happen close to Martin’s father’s house (actually Martin’s father’s girlfriend’s condo).
Following Martin doesn’t need to be excused, and Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin doubled back and attacked him.
If Martin felt threatened, why did he go back looking for Zimmerman after they had lost sight of each other?
‘I am afraid of this creepy-ass cracker. Now I have lost him, and I am a few steps from safety. So I will go back and attack him, break his nose, knock him down, and sit on his chest and beat his head on the sidewalk.’ In what way does this demonstrate “legitimate fear”?
This is all speculation, as is my suggested possible scenario. Either could be consistent with the facts. “Right by”, “close”, and similar are all subjective and actual distance and location could vary pretty significantly.
I understand an insistence that this case may not have had sufficient evidence to render a guilty verdict. I still don’t understand the insistence that Martin definitely, certainly was a terrible kid who deserved to die that day.
Not exactly. That Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose and bashed his head on the sidewalk are about as close to an established fact as we can get in modern society without video of the incident. Everyone’s conclusion about WHY he did those terrible things, including yours that he feared for his life, are speculation.
We know why. His armed stalker/killer was following him home.
However Trayvon having such awareness and agency means that people will gloat over his killing. Black children must be 0% defenceless/unaware to merit the privilege of life, justice or even post-mortem decorum.
Of course the Castile ruling shows us that 0% defenceless/unaware Black men will not be afforded even that.
No, but not being actively engaged in a criminal assault as one’s final act here in mortality would probably go a long way towards deserving “the privilege of life, justice or even post-mortem decorum”