Zimmerman/Martin - how did this get to be about race?

[Human_Action]

@brickbacon

More nonsense. Was it not clear when I said such actions don’t justify being beaten to death? Are you being deliberately obtuse.

Er…

@brickbacon

@Human Action

As opposed to what? Setting aside the various questions of who confronted who in this case, you’d rather that if you followed a random person and they decided to punch you for it, you should have no choice but to lay there and get beaten to death for the sin of following someone?

Pretty much.

That aside, how much should someone be beaten if they follow someone? Is there a point at which they can fight back?

@brickbacon

I am not making a legal argument. My point is, if some women you car about is in a similar situation, do you tell her to not act unless the person assaults her first?

Yes, absolutely.

@brickbacon

And many people would. The question is not what is legally permissible, but rather what is foreseeable.

The term for the people who’d punch him in the face is “criminals”.

@brickbacon

But how do you know he isn’t gonna run right past you? What if he stops short and asks you for help because some guy robbed him? Again, this is where you are trusting your judgment on what someone else’s motives are is accurate. You assume someone running towards you is an imminent threat, yet you deny Martin that same latitude regarding a guy following him at night for apparently no reason.

I can’t even visualize what you’re trying to describe here…someone is running at me, and I run back at them and punch as we come together? A punch is good for about three feet; if someone is running at you and gets within three feet, their stopping short is no longer an option for them. That’s going to be an impact.

@brickbacon

No, but for many people, it heightens the situation. Do you think a heated verbal argument between an unarmed person and one with a gun proceeds in the same fashion and tone as one between 2 unarmed people?

The key to keeping heated verbal arguments from turning violent is for none of the participants to escalate the argument into violence.

This is why I find your musings here so wrongheaded: you are advising people to start a fight if they think someone might, at some future point, attempt to harm them, as opposed to as someone is attempting to harm them. That is horrible, horrible advice: it turns misunderstandings (turns out that guy’s not following me, we were going to the same store! That guy’s my new neighbor, that’s why we both went to the front door of the apartment building! That’s just a jogger, he’s not running at me!) into violent showdowns, where people get hurt or killed. People have a profound ability to be oblivious to their own actions and how they might appear to others. The only sane and legal advice is to never escalate something into violence unless you face an immediate threat.

@brickbacon

Geez. I am not interested in what you can get away with in a court of law. I am asking you if you think it’s right. the legal questions have been settled for the most part. The question is why you think the situation occurred as it did, and where there is fault.

It’s wrong and illegal to use force on people that aren’t an immediate threat to you.

@brickbacon

Cite?

Use the reasonable person test.

[brickbacon]

@Human_Action

Maybe it did, and maybe it didn’t. I object to your certainty, on the back of an anonymous person’s accusation, and the co-worker’s statement about bias against Middle Easterners (you explained that working to aid some members of a race didn’t preclude being biased against it in some circumstances…

It wasn’t an anonymous person. Stop saying that. And I freely admit there can be no certainty in a sitation like this. All I am saying is that there is plenty of evidence he is a racist given his behavior and the testimony of others.

@Human_Action

by the same token, if Zimmerman had a problem with Middle Easterners, that doesn’t make him more or less likely to have a problem with black folks).

I would argue it does make him more likely in reality because people who harbor racist views are more likely to hold such views because they are more likely to be irrational people. That said, it’s fair to question whether that means he hates Black people. BTW, this only came up because some asked about his racist actions. I don’t think his conduct at work means he hates Black people, I think his actions and the testimony of others are what makes such a conclusion defensible.

@Human_Action

First, what are the rates one would expect?

If you are asking for a number, I have no idea. I do know that in the vast majority of cases and circumstances, it would be lower than the tally in his 911 calls.

@Human_Action

You rejected Zimmerman’s working for justice for a black man who was beaten by a white man as evidence contrary to racism, on the grounds that “Being a racist in today’s society very rarely means you hate ALL x people. It usually means you harbor biases that affect your behavior.”

Because it’s not evidence that he did not act with racist intent. Why is this so hard to understand? If you get pulled over for speeding a few times, and they eventually charge you with being a habitual speeder, is testimony about the times you didn’t speed on the road where you got caught evidence you are not a habitual speeder?

@Human_Action

So being a racist doesn’t mean hating ALL x people, but it does mean hating some of every race but your own? If you dislike one group, then you dislike them all?

Why would you assume I was saying that?

@Human_Action

It’s rather complicated by the fact that these were family members. It’s hard to publically side against your family, especially during such a difficult time.

You don’t have to. You say, “hey Dad, a bunch of people think I am a racist, so maybe you shouldn’t put out a book accusing Black people, and random organizations like the NBA, of being racists”. Or you tell your lawyer to do it. It’s honestly not that hard, and if you think George Zimmerman didn’t actively or tacitly approve of these interviews and the like, you are fooling yourself.

@Human_Action

It may have been. The police dispatchers didn’t ask for the subject’s race in every instance, and Zimmerman didn’t volunteer it

Right, but given that him being asked was random, there is no reason to think the subest woudl differ greatly from the whole.

@Human_Action

so we don’t know how disproportionate the numbers were, or how they compare to the immediate area of the neighborhood.

Do you think that Black people made up 7/9 (or whatever the ratio is) of the suspicious people in his neighborhood? Really?

@Human_Action

If all you’ve got is “some of his family made racist remarks!”, then you’ve got nothing.

Wrong. She is saying she can’t specifically recall a quote of his, not that she hasn’t heard them, or that she doesn’t know him to harbor racist opinions. There is no ambiguity in her opinion that he is a racist and may have targeted Martin based on race.

[Tacit_Knowledge]

This is an easy one: ANY TIME something bad happens to a black person, it is racism if some one of another race is involved in any minute manner. It’s the proverbial race card, played at every whim to somehow demonstrate how blacks are supposedly being oppressed by the man. It’s far more enraging than simply admitting the blacks are just as much fuck-ups as anybody else.

After all, we can’t have a black thug getting called on his shit. Somehow blacks feel that they are above penalty-for-crime. Let’s riot; it’s an outrage!

If you can’t tell, I’m so damn sick of the whole race card BS. This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with race.

[YogSothoth]

You’re tired of it but you basically just called out black people for being criminals. I think the race card, in this case, is apt and appropriate

[brickbacon]

@Human_Action

Er…

Or you can not excise the important part of the quote:

[QUOTE=Me]
Pretty much. **But obviously, context matters here. **I think most people would have a reasonable fear for their safety if they were being followed closely by unidentified non-LEO, who could physically harm them, at night, in an isolated area, who declined numerous opportunities to identify himself or defuse the situation. The fact that you followed someone under those circumstances is grounds for getting punched in the face if it comes to that. **Should you be beaten to death? No, but there is not evidence that was a real likelihood in this case. **
[/QUOTE]

So at this point, I think it’s pretty clear you are not debating in good faith. Either retract your statement, or explain why you misquoted me.

@Human_Action

That aside, how much should someone be beaten if they follow someone? Is there a point at which they can fight back?

Enough to get this person away from them, or to repel what they deem to be an immediate threat.

@Human_Action

I can’t even visualize what you’re trying to describe here…someone is running at me, and I run back at them and punch as we come together?

Let me clarify. You believe a physically imposing person is running towards you. Is it reasonable for you to brace yourself and to push them out of your way before they get too close? Must you wait before they hit you before you react physically?

@Human_Action

This is why I find your musings here so wrongheaded: you are advising people to start a fight if they think someone might, at some future point, attempt to harm them, as opposed to as someone is attempting to harm them.

In certain contexts, yes. Again, if someone breaks into my house. Should I wait until they assault me before I react? Or course not. The context there is that this guy not only broke the law, but (more importantly) is engaging in behavior that can reasonably considered threatening. Similarly, a good majority of people consider being followed by a strange man at night threatening.

@Human_Action

Use the reasonable person test.

Care to elaborate how that substantiates your previous claim?

[brickbacon]

@Tacit_Knowledge

This is an easy one: ANY TIME something bad happens to a black person, it is racism if some one of another race is involved in any minute manner. It’s the proverbial race card, played at every whim to somehow demonstrate how blacks are supposedly being oppressed by the man. It’s far more enraging than simply admitting the blacks are just as much fuck-ups as anybody else.

After all, we can’t have a black thug getting called on his shit. Somehow blacks feel that they are above penalty-for-crime. Let’s riot; it’s an outrage!

If you can’t tell, I’m so damn sick of the whole race card BS. This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with race.

Is this enough glee for you Bricker?

[pancakes3]

@brickbacon

Because it’s not evidence that he did not act with racist intent. Why is this so hard to understand? If you get pulled over for speeding a few times, and they eventually charge you with being a habitual speeder, is testimony about the times you didn’t speed on the road where you got caught evidence you are not a habitual speeder?

This is a bad analogy to invoke for your part of the argument.

To reword your analogy to better fit what is going on:

Zimmerman may or may not drive fast. One time, while driving, he hit someone, and that person died. You’re claiming that Zimmerman hit this guy because he speeds. There may be other factors at play - he was distracted, his brakes failed, the pedestrian flung himself into traffic, it was dark and he didn’t see the pedestrian in time, etc. but no. You are harping on the speeding aspect. Now there are two testimonies of Zimmerman speeding in the past, plus his dad and brother are notorious speeders. Zimmerman doesn’t have any prior arrests or even tickets of speeding. Traffic cameras have certainly shown him to be driving recently but no concrete evidence of him speeding. Even if he was speeding, the skid marks certainly don’t suggest that he was recklessly speeding - at worst 10 or so miles above the posted speed limit.

Now you’re so quick to label him a speed demon, that speed kills innocent lives, that nobody is safe to walk the byways anymore because letting this man off the hook somehow is carte blanc for others to continue speeding.

All the while ignoring the other aspects of the case which may or may not have contributed to this death.

That’s your analogy.

[Human_Action]

@brickbacon

It wasn’t an anonymous person. Stop saying that. And I freely admit there can be no certainty in a sitation like this. All I am saying is that there is plenty of evidence he is a racist given his behavior and the testimony of others.

You’re right, there is no certainty to be had.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I would argue it does make him more likely in reality because people who harbor racist views are more likely to hold such views because they are more likely to be irrational people. That said, it’s fair to question whether that means he hates Black people. BTW, this only came up because some asked about his racist actions. I don’t think his conduct at work means he hates Black people, I think his actions and the testimony of others are what makes such a conclusion defensible.
[/quote]

More likely? That’s plausible.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
If you are asking for a number, I have no idea. I do know that in the vast majority of cases and circumstances, it would be lower than the tally in his 911 calls.
[/quote]

Well, if you wish to say that Zimmerman’s calls are outside of the expected bounds, it stands to reason that you need to know what those bounds are.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Because it’s not evidence that he did not act with racist intent. Why is this so hard to understand? If you get pulled over for speeding a few times, and they eventually charge you with being a habitual speeder, is testimony about the times you didn’t speed on the road where you got caught evidence you are not a habitual speeder?
[/quote]

Yes, it is. Not conclusive evidence, mind, but yes, it’s contrary evidence.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Why would you assume I was saying that?
[/quote]

It was my best effort to interpret your arguement. If being a racist doesn’t mean hating all of group X at all times, then it certainly doesn’t mean hating some of all non-you groups. That is, bias against Middle Easterners does not directly translate into bias against black. As was covered above.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
You don’t have to. You say, “hey Dad, a bunch of people think I am a racist, so maybe you shouldn’t put out a book accusing Black people, and random organizations like the NBA, of being racists”. Or you tell your lawyer to do it. It’s honestly not that hard, and if you think George Zimmerman didn’t actively or tacitly approve of these interviews and the like, you are fooling yourself.
[/quote]

How do you know he didn’t say just that? Why do you assume he can control what his father and brother do and say?

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Right, but given that him being asked was random, there is no reason to think the subest woudl differ greatly from the whole.
[/quote]

We’re talking about a very small sample size, so there’s no reason to think the larger set would track the subset’s trend. If we were talking about 300 calls, sure.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Do you think that Black people made up 7/9 (or whatever the ratio is) of the suspicious people in his neighborhood? Really?
[/quote]

Do you know the age and racial breakdown of the neighborhood and the ones around it? I don’t have that information.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Wrong. She is saying she can’t specifically recall a quote of his, not that she hasn’t heard them, or that she doesn’t know him to harbor racist opinions. There is no ambiguity in her opinion that he is a racist and may have targeted Martin based on race.
[/QUOTE]

I find people who claim that people have said things more credible when they can actually recall what was said. That’s me, though. Her opinions are noted.

[brickbacon]

@pancakes3

This is a bad analogy to invoke for your part of the argument.

To reword your analogy to better fit what is going on:

I disagree. You are implying a finding of being a speed demon means he killed the kid because he was speeding. That this finding led to the conclusion. That is not what I am saying. I am saying he is a racist. That is an independent judgement one could make long before he ever met Martin. Him being a racist doesn’t mean he is a killer. I just think it contributed to his rationale for following Martin. Your anlalogy breaks down not only for the above reasons, but also because you assume there wasn’t evidence of speeding.

If you want to work within your setup, it would be like if his car was worn out from drag racing, and there were skid marks to indicated he was traveling over the speed limit when he hit the kid. You could still make an argument that the accident wasn’t caused by his speeding, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t speeding. Similarly, I think evidence of him being a racist is pretty strong even if you want to argue him being a racist didn’t directly lead to Martin being killed.

@pancakes3

Zimmerman may or may not drive fast. One time, while driving, he hit someone, and that person died. You’re claiming that Zimmerman hit this guy because he speeds.

Yes, because he would have never been in a position to hit the kid had he not been a speeder, and been speeding in this particular case.

@pancakes3

There may be other factors at play - he was distracted, his brakes failed, the pedestrian flung himself into traffic, it was dark and he didn’t see the pedestrian in time, etc. but no. You are harping on the speeding aspect.

Because nobody seems to be arguing those things. I have yet to see someone credible say Martin was acting suspicious, that it was prudent for Zimmerman to pursue, etc. Those mitigating factors you are analogizing here. It’s one thing to say him being a racist didn’t factor into this event occurring. It’s another entirely to deny the evidence that he is a racist.

@pancakes3

Now there are two testimonies of Zimmerman speeding in the past,

In addition to circumstantial evidence of him speeding on a regular basis.

@pancakes3

Zimmerman doesn’t have any prior arrests or even tickets of speeding.

This is not really analogous at all given being a racist is not illegal.

@pancakes3

Even if he was speeding, the skid marks certainly don’t suggest that he was recklessly speeding - at worst 10 or so miles above the posted speed limit.

And if you made that argument after striking a pedestrian, how far far do you think that would get you?

[Tacit_Knowledge]

No

@YogSosoth

You’re tired of it but you basically just called out black people for being criminals. I think the race card, in this case, is apt and appropriate

No, I called out black people for being people. Race has nothing to do with it. The race card is almost never appropriate. It’s just a hedge blacks use to gain an unfair advantage in the judgement process by implying that their actions/misdeeds are less important that their black-ness.

[Terr]

@brickbacon

I am saying he is a racist.

And yet the FBI, after interviewing three dozen or so people that know Zimmerman, could not find any evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. He really hides it well, doesn’t he?

[pancakes3]

@brickbacon

Yes, because he would have never been in a position to hit the kid had he not been a speeder, and been speeding in this particular case.

So you’re saying that there is no impetus at all other than Zimmerman wanting to fuck with someone who’s a different race that would have compelled him to do what he did?

[Human_Action]

@brickbacon

Or you can not excise the important part of the quote:

So at this point, I think it’s pretty clear you are not debating in good faith. Either retract your statement, or explain why you misquoted me.

It’s not a misquote. “Pretty much…but you probably won’t actually get beaten to death” is not saying that the actions don’t justify being beaten to death. “It’s unlikely” is a far, far cry from “it’s wrong”.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Enough to get this person away from them, or to repel what they deem to be an immediate threat.
[/quote]

Don’t forget the second part: to what degree, if any, can the follower fight back?

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Let me clarify. You believe a physically imposing person is running towards you. Is it reasonable for you to brace yourself and to push them out of your way before they get too close? Must you wait before they hit you before you react physically?
[/quote]

No, as I said, if they are coming within arm’s reach of you at high speed, then it is an imminent threat, because humans don’t stop on a dime from a dead run.

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
In certain contexts, yes. Again, if someone breaks into my house. Should I wait until they assault me before I react? Or course not. The context there is that this guy not only broke the law, but (more importantly) is engaging in behavior that can reasonably considered threatening. Similarly, a good majority of people consider being followed by a strange man at night threatening.
[/quote]

Those people are wrong, if they believe that they are morally or legally justified in attacking someone for following them.

How long must they wait before attacking? Since you don’t require the threat to be imminent, would a block do? Two? A hundred yards? On foot only, or also in cars? Can they attack with a weapon?

[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Care to elaborate how that substantiates your previous claim?
[/QUOTE]

A person can use force if it is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Someone leaping out at you and shouting is a fine example.

[Tollhouse]

Pancakes, well?

[brickbacon]

@Human_Action

Well, if you wish to say that Zimmerman’s calls are outside of the expected bounds, it stands to reason that you need to know what those bounds are.

Why? If I research the demographic of his neighborhood and community, am I supposed to think you will actually concede the point? Or are you just pettifogging in an attempt to waste my time? If you really think that the demographics of suspicious people in his neighborhood matched that of the 911 calls, then I don’t know what to tell you.

@pancakes3

Yes, it is. Not conclusive evidence, mind, but yes, it’s contrary evidence.

It’s not even really contrary evidence. If I look outside and say the sky is blue, and you point out that it’s never blue at night, that doesn’t really speak to my claim. Context matters here. A claim of racism doesn’t mean he hates X people at all times, it every situation. Does Kissinger working for Nixon mean Nixon isn’t an antisemite? Not really given there are concrete statements that expose his antisemitism.

@pancakes3

It was my best effort to interpret your arguement. If being a racist doesn’t mean hating all of group X at all times, then it certainly doesn’t mean hating some of all non-you groups. That is, bias against Middle Easterners does not directly translate into bias against black. As was covered above.

I didn’t say that it did. I said it makes him a racist (which it does).

@pancakes3

How do you know he didn’t say just that? Why do you assume he can control what his father and brother do and say?

Because his silence speaks volumes. If you found yourself in a similar case, and your family’s words were hurting you, would you sit back and say nothing?

@pancakes3

We’re talking about a very small sample size, so there’s no reason to think the larger set would track the subset’s trend. If we were talking about 300 calls, sure.

Sample size just ups are our confidence. If there is no inherent bias in our sampling, you would roughly expect it to track on average. More importantly, it not like we are talking about close numbers here. It was like 7 of 9 or something like that. The chances of that happening by accident when the data was more reflective of the demographics are very slim.

@pancakes3

I find people who claim that people have said things more credible when they can actually recall what was said. That’s me, though. Her opinions are noted.

Why would you remember specific details of something you didn’t necessarily think was important? Do you remember what you wore 1 month ago? What about what your boss was wearing 3 days ago? If you work in an office where people wear suits, would you be comfortable saying he wore a suit even if you can’t specifically remember what kind? What if someone asked you whether he is a “suit wearer”?

[pancakes3]

@Tollhouse

Pancakes, well?

Well what?

[Human_Action]

@brickbacon

Why? If I research the demographic of his neighborhood and community, am I supposed to think you will actually concede the point? Or are you just pettifogging in an attempt to waste my time? If you really think that the demographics of suspicious people in his neighborhood matched that of the 911 calls, then I don’t know what to tell you.

If I’m such a scoundrel, why are you spending this time engaging me?

As for the actual issues:

1. We’re unaware of the demographics of Zimmerman’s neighborhood and the surrounding area.
2. Not every call included Zimmerman being asked for the person’s race, and this may or may not have been random.
3. We’re dealing with a very small sample size.

Don’t discount the importance of that last one. Say I ran a store, and called the police about 9 shoplifters. 7 of them were black. Is that evidence that I watch black shoppers more closely, or did I just happen to get more than the expected number of black shoplifters through chance? 9 data points do not a reliable trend make.

And in this case, you don’t even know the proportions of blacks and non-blacks who shop in my store. A conclusion that I was racist is as shaky as your conclusion that Zimmerman is. It’s possibly, but highly inconclusive.
ETA: My position isn’t that Zimmerman is or is not a racist, but rather than there’s not enough evidence either way to know. Since you’ve backed off on your certainty, I’m content to leave it at that.

[aag3981]

@brickbacon

I don’t go by his testimony.

Maybe. But the issue shouldn’t rest on whether you are losing a fight you started.

They are not analogies, they are hypotheticals. There is a difference you have a problem appreciating.

Decades of social science disagrees with you.

If you aren’t going by his testimony then how are you basing your claims? Why do you believe that Zimmerman started the fight?

Let’s just say that Zimmerman is a raging racist and racially profiled Martin. Per what is known, he followed Martin, for what ever reason and it is reasonable to see that Martin felt threatened by the behavior. The point is who confronted who. Regardless of Zimmerman’s motivations, what if he did stop following Martin, as he ascerts, is completely reasonable to believe considering time line, and Martin came back and confronted him. There isn’t enough known to determine.

Please, also tell me how your examples being hypotheticals make them any less poor. You still are advocating gross over responses. Also, I would like to see a cite where social science disagrees with me. Some people fight, some people flee, almost no one can know what they will do in the situation.

[brickbacon]

@Terr

And yet the FBI, after interviewing three dozen or so people that know Zimmerman, could not find any evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. He really hides it well, doesn’t he?

Wrong. They felt they couldn’t demonstrate it in a court of law. There are already two people on record accusing him of being a racist.

@pancakes3

So you’re saying that there is no impetus at all other than Zimmerman wanting to fuck with someone who’s a different race that would have compelled him to do what he did?

No. I am saying he racially profiled Martin, thinking he was in fact a criminal in large part due to his race and nothing else. I don’t think he just wants to fuck with minorities, I think he assume bad things about minorities that lead him to certain actions.

@Human_Action

It’s not a misquote. “Pretty much…but you probably won’t actually get beaten to death” is not saying that the actions don’t justify being beaten to death. “It’s unlikely” is a far, far cry from “it’s wrong”.

Bullshit. I am done wasting my time with you. You are disingenuous and completely full of shit.

@pancakes3

A person can use force if it is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Someone leaping out at you and shouting is a fine example.

No, it’s not. It’s highly subjective given leaping out at you, is often indistinguishable from coming out from someplace someone didn’t see you.

[pancakes3]

@brickbacon

I disagree. You are implying a finding of being a speed demon means he killed the kid because he was speeding.

No, you’re saying that a) you can prove that he’s a speed demon in the past and b) in doing so, this particular incident necessitates GZ’s speeding.

I am saying he is a racist. That is an independent judgement one could make long before he ever met Martin (this would be part a). Him being a racist doesn’t mean he is a killer. I just think it contributed to his rationale for following Martin (this would be part b).

Your anlalogy breaks down not only for the above reasons, but also because you assume there wasn’t evidence of speeding.

I’m not assuming anything. I just don’t see how previous implications of his “speeding” should be considered as part of speeding evidence for this particular incident.

If you want to work within your setup, it would be like if his car was worn out from drag racing, and there were skid marks to indicated he was traveling over the speed limit when he hit the kid. You could still make an argument that the accident wasn’t caused by his speeding, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t speeding. Similarly, I think evidence of him being a racist is pretty strong even if you want to argue him being a racist didn’t directly lead to Martin being killed.

A car worn out from drag racing doesn’t mean it’s in a constant state of drag racing. Skid marks for this exact incident would be hard evidence of him being racist in this incident. Evidence being… neighbors recounting GZ using racial slurs, the dispatcher recounting GZ using racial slurs, a mind-reading machine to uncover the motivations of GZ that night, etc. We don’t have that evidence, so we can’t make that statement no matter how big of a hunch you have, or what ever generalization you choose to hitch your intuition to.

Yes, because he would have never been in a position to hit the kid had he not been a speeder, and been speeding in this particular case.

As stated above, you seem to feel that if GZ had no racist impetus at all, he wouldn’t be on neighborhood watch, looking for “punks”. He absolutely would. He could be motivated in other ways. He hates kids. He hates punk looking kids. He hates people in general. He legitimately feels like he’s providing a neighborhood service. He legitimately thought Martin was a threat even though he couldn’t make out his race on a dark, rainy night with the hood up.

Because nobody seems to be arguing those things. I have yet to see someone credible say Martin was acting suspicious, that it was prudent for Zimmerman to pursue, etc. Those mitigating factors you are analogizing here. It’s one thing to say him being a racist didn’t factor into this event occurring. It’s another entirely to deny the evidence that he is a racist.

Well that’s convenient. Nobody credible. How about everyone on this board, the jury, the prosecution, the DOJ, etc. that have repeatedly said that race is not a consideration? That the reasons I mentioned in the previous quote are probably more likely motivators for GZ? No. It has to be race. We’re not arguing prudancy. We’re arguing motivation here and whether it was a racist one or not.

In addition to circumstantial evidence of him speeding on a regular basis.

If you’re going to take circumstantial evidence from the past as if it’s fair game, then you should also allow the character evidence taken on Trayvon for being a petty burglar, drug user, aggressor, etc. to paint the worst possible image of Martin as well.