This is a very good point, one that I had not considered.
mmm
No, I think we do agree that we cannot know exactly what went down.
Unless you claim to really know.
You’re not claiming that. Are you?
mmm
Given what is known about all that was going on, why would he have gone for his gun, and why would he have mentioned he was packing before reaching for it?
Precisely. Castile’s actions make no sense for a man who actually intended to shoot a police officer, and Yanez should have known that. At the very least he should have waited until he actually SAW A GUN before unleashing the fuckin’ fury. And the jury should have convicted Yanez of something, if not murder or manslaughter at least something like reckless endangerment, but we all know that’s practically impossible with today’s judicial system. :mad:
George Zimmerman uses CCW to mistakenly kill a black kid minding his own business. Philando Castle was minding his own business and telling an officer that he had a gun and gets shot by a cop. Common denominator? Both black men are dead. And both black men are legally killed.
Concealed carry licenses are basically documents that give white men legal permission to kill non-whites legally. Anyone who says otherwise just needs to crack open a fucking history book and read about things like Code Noir and peonage.
Unless Yanez actually saw a gun, all he can really say is that Castile “appeared to be reaching”. Is a suspect “appearing to reach for something” enough to justify a police officer shooting them? I would answer “no”, even before considering the additional factor that Yanez had asked Castile to hand over his license.
But again (sigh) - we do not know what Yanez saw.
mmm
Is anyone contending Yanez saw a gun? I don’t think this point is in dispute: Yanez saw Castile reaching for something, but didn’t see what it was.
And if that’s the case, I’m saying it’s not enough to justify shooting him.
That’s not even remotely close to what happened. Trayvon earned the bullet he caught.
If you take the words of Zimmerman as 100% true, perhaps. Do you think everything Zimmerman said was definitely 100% true to the point that you’re willing to say to this kid’s grieving parents that he “earned the bullet”?
The trial may not have proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that Martin might have been in fear for his life, and reacted with violence towards someone he believed meant violence against him.
Sure. It’s got nothing to do with “take the words of Zimmerman as 100% true”. The physical evidence supported his version of events. But, at the very least, you seem to acknowledge that Trayvon was violent towards Zimmerman. That’s a whole hell of a lot closer to our best understanding of the truth than he was “minding his own business”.
The physical evidence also supports my proposed interpretation. I just think it’s incredibly callous and unkind of you to say that Martin, who may have legitimately been in fear for his life, “earned the bullet”.
You’re ignoring the third possibility, also supported by evidence, that the Zimmerman-Martin shooting was a case of “When Assholes Collide.”
I have no certainty as to what happened; I’m not ignoring anything.
Do we agree that Martin was most likely on top of Zimmerman, beating the shit our of him, when he got shot?
Iiandyiiii,
You are correct, my phrasing above was unnecessarily callous, I’ll try to frame the events as I understand them more kindly in the future. I think the evidence presented at trial shows that Martin was getting the better end of a physical confrontation between the two of them when he was shot.
That’s very possible, but it doesn’t conflict with the idea that Martin might have been in fear for his life due to Zimmerman aggressively accosting him for no reason. Being a better fighter after being attacked (which may be what happened) doesn’t count as “earning a bullet”.
“Aggressively accosting him” and “being attacked” are two claims with, AFAIK, no evidence to support them.
Neither do they conflict with any evidence, in my understanding. I understand that’s not enough to convict, but considering Zimmerman’s truly reprehensible actions and statements since then, I think it’s just as likely that this happened than that Zimmerman’s scenario occurred.
There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, but there is substantial physical evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. You are, of course, free to imagine any fantasy scenario you like.