“criminal assault” is Trayvon hiting his stalker/killer, but Martin shooting a black child walking home is serving just deserts. Black children must be 0% defenceless/unaware to merit the privilege of life, justice or even post-mortem decorum.
Trayvon was selected, stalked, and shot to death that night; however since he had the awareness and agency to hit his armed stalker/killer, people will deny his right to live.
Again the Castile case shows us that such unawareness/agency won’t win you justice in the court of law.
More speculation, that just so happens to match the narrative that Martin deserved to die. If shooting someone can be self-defense, depending on the situation, so can hitting someone or slamming them against the ground.
It’s a conclusion supported by the evidence of Zimmerman’s face and head wounds and the abrasions on Martin’s hands. Do you have an alternate theory for how Zimmerman got beat up that you’d like to propose?
Yes, it can be, but there’s no evidence to support the speculation that it was in this case. If, for example, Martin had been armed that night and shot and killed Zimmerman instead of hitting him and slamming his head on the concrete, I’d be intrigued to hear his claim of reasonable self-defense at trial, but I highly doubt he would’ve convinced a jury that it was justified.
ZImmerman didn’t shoot Martin while he was walking home; he shot him while Martin was sitting on his chest bashing his head into the sidewalk.
It just so happens to match the evidence. We can be reasonably sure that Martin punched Zimmerman because of the marks on Martin’s knuckles and the wounds on Zimmerman’s face. We can be reasonably sure that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest bashing his head against the ground because of the wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, the fact that grass stains and moisture were found on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket and on Martin’s knees, and because an eye witness said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
You seem to believe that any scenario is as likely as any other. That’s not the case. The scenario where [ul][li]Zimmerman spotted Martin acting in a way he found suspicious, []reported this to the NEN operator, []started following Martin, []lost sight of Martin, []Martin was safely close to his father’s house, []Martin then doubled back and found Zimmerman, and []Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, knocked him down, jumped on his chest and pounded his head against the ground, and then [*]Zimmerman drew his gun and shot him[/ul] is the likely scenario. [/li]
Because each and every one of the elements of that scenario is backed up by evidence apart from Zimmerman’s statements.
Sure – after stalking Martin, Zimmerman accosted him (possibly physically), and Martin reacted in (entirely reasonable) fear, with violence, and as he got the better of Zimmerman, Zimmerman shot him.
I don’t know that this happened, but the evidence supports it just as much as your scenario. And IMO if that’s what happens, Zimmerman is at greater fault since he stalked a kid and caused him reasonable fear for his life.
I think you’re likely correct, but I think that’s because it’s very difficult in our society for a young black man to convince a jury that killing a non-black person could be anything but murder.
I don’t think it’s very difficult if there’s some evidence to support the claim. In this hypothetical, Martin would appear to have none.
Trust me, we’re better off as a society if killing someone in self-defense requires more evidence than a semi-plausible story by the killer unsubstantiated by any physical evidence. Young, black men, in particular, are better off if there’s a reasonably high bar to claims of self defense. It’s a bar that Zimmerman’s story, combined with the physical evidence of Martin’s assault, clears easily, but one that your theory about Martin’s “self-defense” does not.
You have a very … ummmm … expansive … definition for the word “child”, don’t you? And apparently a non-legal one for “stalking”.
But yes, it is not illegal to defend yourself with lethal force when the 17-year-old “child” attacks you and causes you reasonable fear for your life. There were lots of ways I can think of that Martin could have tried to “stop” Zimmerman from following him that had an excellent chance of success and didn’t involve punching him in the face.
If so, then it’s possible that Martin was doomed no matter what he did, if Zimmerman wanted him dead (due to disgusting vigilante fantasies). Fight back against someone who wants to kill you? Either get shot, as he did, or go to jail for murder.
Perhaps – but we’re not much better off when both shooters and victims are treated differently (on the streets and in the courtroom) based on their race, which I think is very clearly the case quite frequently (Castile, Walter Jones, Sean Groubert, and more).
Actually, come to think of it, we white people are better off when this is the case – less likely to go to jail if we kill a black person, and the fear of overwhelming (and often unjust) reprisals lower the likelihood of us being killed by a black person, even if we’re in the wrong.
Yes he shot this child walking home. The world did not come into existence the moment of your choice. Zimmerman was armed and eager for a fight; he chose this child and killed him.
NO! He wasn’t “doomed”. There were lots of courses of action Trayvon could have taken that likely ended up with Zimmerman and Martin both sleeping in their own beds that night.
Two of these are victims and one’s a perpetrator, so this list is a bit odd, but in two of the three incidents your list refers to, the white police shooter has been convicted of a crime for shooting a black man. Doesn’t that undermine your point, rather than support it?
Zimmerman armed himself, followed/stalked a young man in the middle of the night, was involved in some sort of altercation with him, and then shot him dead. Subsequently, Zimmerman has bragged about the killing, minimized/insulted the dead kid he shot, and tried to profit from the killing.
Taking all that into account, it seems pretty reasonable to believe that there’s a significant likelihood that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin (or he wanted to kill someone, and Martin was the chosen target due to bad luck).
In your mind, what was the position of the 17-year-old at the moment he was shot? Was he walking? Standing? Kneeling? Laying on the ground? Something else?
Not if Zimmerman wanted to kill him (which, again, I’m not certain of, but it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility).
My point is about disparate treatment both on the streets and in the courtroom. That, sometimes, there is just treatment in one or both doesn’t discount the point that there often is not.
And so was it sheer luck that Martin was dumb enough to play into his evil plan and provide him with just the physical evidence and witnesses he needed for a jury to conclude it was justified self-defense?
When people say, “People of color have good reason not to trust the police,” I want to ask what is the proposed alternative.
Sure, nobody has to trust the police. But if pulled over while driving, what is the recommended course of action? Be quiet and compliant? That might not necessarily stop a cop from killing you, but it’s far likelier to lead to survival than being belligerent, violent or fleeing.
“Trust of the police,” in a certain sense, is irrelevant, from a practical/pragmatic perspective.