Trevon Martin

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Mentions protest...

I think the protests are stupid.

Innocent people die ALL the time!  But just because one non-black guy killed a black guy, everyone goes crazy!!!

Like dude what the heck?!  You're all a bunch of losers! 

I don't have a problem with protesting, but if you do, then you better consider everyone else.

[ahinton]

Prosecutors aren't stupid.  They must have known they had a weak case and were unlikely to prevail.  I think they were forced to bring it to trial because of the political implications - if they did not at least try, they might be seen as racist.

That's as maybe, but a lack of stupidity on the prosecution's part (if there was such a thing) should be hardly sufficient to exonerate anyone from conviction or acquittal as appropriate; it's the clear lack of sufficient evidence that ought to be at issue here.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

it's the clear lack of sufficient evidence that ought to be at issue here.

Best,

Alistair

Quite right.

There was also the failure to articulate any specific "theory of the crime."  Just what was it Zimmerman did wrong, before the trigger pull?  What was his intent?  It was all so vague.

Reminds me of the story of the turtle, robbed by two snails on his way home.  The police asked if he could describe his attackers.  He shook his head sadly, "no, it all happened so fast."   

[thalbergmad]

But just because one non-black guy killed a black guy, everyone goes crazy!!!

The media went crazy and that went a long way to whip up a frenzy amongst those that think the ethnicity of those involved in this case is important.

I happen to think it is pathetic, but "man kills man" ain't going to sell any papers.

Thal

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The media went crazy and that went a long way to whip up a frenzy amongst those that think the ethnicity of those involved in this case is important.

I happen to think it is pathetic, but "man kills man" ain't going to sell any papers.

Thal

AAAAAAGH I HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

This is precisely the reason why I'm gonna end the world!

I am sooooo mad!!!!!!!!!!!!

They're all a bunch of stupid punks!  Losers!!!

[oxy60]

If Travon's parents had stayed married he would be alive today!

[timothy42b]

If Travon's parents had stayed married he would be alive today!

Not so sure.

There are some studies that show kids turn our better with bad parenting but good neighborhoods and peer groups than the other way around.  The subculture of the peer group has more power than the parents do.

And that's probably very relevant to this case. 

[oxy60]

If he was living with both his parents in that very neighborhood he would be known to everybody and coming home from the store he would be recognized. Rather he was "between parents" going to live with his father and walking there for the first(?) time.

The aggressiveness of his culture didn't help his cause.

He could have introduced himself...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The aggressiveness of his culture didn't help his cause.

He could have introduced himself...

If some weirdo was following you at night, you wouldn't introduce yourself. 

You would either run away or confront him.

He chose the latter.

I don't know what I would've done, hmmm...

[gep]

I haven't tuned into this matter very deeply, being removed from it several thousand miles, but it sounds all rather messy. I also fear that situations like this are pretty much unavoidable in a country that bristles with guns and has such exceedingly free laws regarding private use of guns (I think use of guns and such should be only in the hands of police and army, not John Doe and associates), and a country in which the idiotic concept of ‘race’ (in all ‘races’) is still so very important.

It seems to me Mr. Zimmermann may have shot in what you might call self-defense, but also that the situation in which the need of that self-defense became an item was at least partly created by himself. But again, in a country where bearing a gun is but all as normal as bearing clothes, people, for reasons of self-protection, are bound to assume any other person they encounter may have a gun, and have a stance of ‘shoot first, check later’.

Also, I cannot suppress the idea that many people now crying Zimmermann guilty are the same were crying O.J. Simpson not guilty, and for the same reason (i.e. no connection as to what actually happened).

Furthermore, I wonder if the outcry would be the same if the ‘color-scheme’ had been reversed, or if the victim had not been called Trayvon Martin, but Carlos Mendoza…
To conclude, if murder cannot be proven, Zimmermann cannot be convicted for it, no matter what actually may have happened.

That said, the situation is very tragic indeed, for all parties involved.

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

To conclude, if murder cannot be proven, Zimmermann cannot be convicted for it, no matter what actually may have happened.

That said, the situation is very tragic indeed, for all parties involved.

Of course it would be untenable and indeed unforgivable to convict someone of murder without the necessary evidence, but what bothers me is that there was never any doubt about the fact that Zimmerman shot the victim dead; if there's also insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did this in self-defence, I find it equally suspect that he was not convicted of anything at all and quite worrying in terms of the signals that this may send out.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Having done some reading up on this case (on this source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin ; not normally always to be fbe fully trusted, but I think in this case the text can be considered accurate), I come to the following conclusions

1)   Martin was unarmed, while Zimmerman was
2)   Zimmerman carried a gun legally
3)   Zimmerman found Martin’s behavior prior to the incident ‘suspicious’. This seems to have been justified.
4)   Zimmerman did not go after Martin (as he was told to do after calling the police with his suspicions)
5)   There are no eye-witness reports (known) of that fatal incident, other than the one survivor: Zimmerman.
6)   Zimmerman’s various testimonies show no inconsistencies. Also his spoken report on what happened has been checked through a ‘voice stress’ test (some sort of lie detecting check); no indication of lies or attempt to change came forward (i.e. he wasn’t lying).
7)   Autopsy on Martin showed no trace of physical violence prior to the shooting.
   Zimmermann showed multiple wounds inflicted through physical violence experienced right before the shooting.
9)   In the recording of the 911 call (made by Zimmerman) multiple calls for help can be heard; it has been established beyond doubt these calls came (all) from Zimmerman.
10)   Autopsy on Martin showed traces of drug use, although is such low levels that he probably wasn’t under influence at the time of the incident.
11)   There is no evidence of racist tendencies on Zimmerman’s side (rather the opposite). There is evidence of racist tendencies on Martin’s side.
12)   Media coverage was very much tilted to Martin’s side and against Zimmerman, to the point of deliberately and deceptive coverage and even editing the 911 call by CNN and NBC.
13)   Even President Obama made statements that supported the ‘racist victim’ when the trial was underway.

Insofar as I feel save to draw conclusions:
1)   Was Martin the victim of (2nd degree) murder? No.
2)   Was Martin the victim of racist induced violence? No.
3)   Was Zimmerman the victim of (unprovoked) violence by Martin? I lean to yes.
4)   Was Martin shot in an act of self-defense by Zimmerman? I lean to yes.

I have seen no evidence on which Zimmerman could (or should) be convicted, with the possible exception of involuntary manslaughter (which doesn’t mean there could not surface any; I base myself here in what I know of the case so far, which is that I see no evidence for conviction)

What does this whole tragedy give as signal? That in the US any violence case between ‘different races’ will be the hijacked by ‘supporters’ of both sides, be the victim of twisted and untrustworthy media, hype and sometimes understandable but nevertheless unjustified emotions on both sides. Oh, and that widespread gun ownership isn’t a good idea.

All best,
gep

[davidjosepha]

and a country in which the idiotic concept of ‘race’ (in all ‘races’) is still so very important.

Yes, Europe isn't racist at all, at least when they're not complaining about gypsies and arabs.

in a country where bearing a gun is but all as normal as bearing clothes, people, for reasons of self-protection, are bound to assume any other person they encounter may have a gun, and have a stance of ‘shoot first, check later’.

I don't think Zimmerman argued that he thought the other party had a gun. In fact, you're quite misinformed in your entire impression of guns in the US. It's cute, though.

if there's also insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did this in self-defence, I find it equally suspect that he was not convicted of anything at all and quite worrying in terms of the signals that this may send out.

Imagine you are in your house and an intruder breaks into the house. However, he didn't really break in, since you were an idiot and forgot to lock your door. So there's no evidence that he wasn't invited into your house. Anyway, he's unarmed, but he's also about twice as big as you and could pin you against the wall without lifting a finger and could easily break your neck. So, he's in the house, stealing your sh*t, when you wake up. You grab your gun and slip it in the back of your pants. You walk downstairs and see the guy. Damn, it's your sleazy brother-in-law. He sees you, realizes that you're going to call the police, and runs at you. At this point, you don't know what he's going to do--he might just beat you up so he's got a chance to escape before you can call the police, but you know he knows you recognized him, so that's not looking too good for him, and he also could easily stop you from ever taking another breath, and he's already robbing you, you don't know if he'd be willing to murder (or if he already had murdered) at that point. You lay him full of bullets, he goes down. You call the police. They arrest you, try you for murder, and convict you because you have admitted to killing the guy, and they can think of another, perhaps not equally, but certainly reasonably plausible story for what happened. He came in the house to talk to you about something. He thinks his wife, your sister, is cheating on him, maybe, and he decides to come over, unannounced, to ask for your help and to talk. Do you even have proof that you didn't let him in the house?

Plenty of situations where you'd be justified in using self-defense but it'd be impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was self-defense.

[davidjosepha]

Oh, and that widespread gun ownership isn’t a good idea.

Trayvon was in the process of obtaining an illegal gun when the shooting took place. Had the whole thing happened a couple weeks later, it's possible Trayvon would have been carrying a gun. In such a circumstance, would you feel more comfortable with only Trayvon having a gun and Zimmerman being unarmed?

I don't think a lot of people realize how vulnerable they are physically. I know that with my body size, Trayvon, or pretty much any male assailant, could beat me unconscious relatively easily. Once unconscious, I'd be entirely at my attacker's mercy, which, given that they just beat me unconscious, I wouldn't be inclined to trust in that too much. If there were other people around, that'd be a different story since they could protect me once unconscious, but if someone significantly larger than me attacked me, while I was alone, I'd feel perfectly comfortable pointing a gun at them with the intention of using it.

[dima_76557]

Imagine you are in your house and an intruder breaks into the house. [...]
Plenty of situations where you'd be justified in using self-defense but it'd be impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was self-defense.

I have to admit that in some countries, the only reasonable option you have in such a situation is to do nothing and simply jump over the balcony, even if you live on the 9th floor, otherwise you'll surely go to jail, whatever you do. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Imagine you are in your house and an intruder breaks into the house. However, he didn't really break in, since you were an idiot and forgot to lock your door. So there's no evidence that he wasn't invited into your house. Anyway, he's unarmed, but he's also about twice as big as you and could pin you against the wall without lifting a finger and could easily break your neck. So, he's in the house, stealing your sh*t, when you wake up. You grab your gun and slip it in the back of your pants. You walk downstairs and see the guy. Damn, it's your sleazy brother-in-law. He sees you, realizes that you're going to call the police, and runs at you. At this point, you don't know what he's going to do--he might just beat you up so he's got a chance to escape before you can call the police, but you know he knows you recognized him, so that's not looking too good for him, and he also could easily stop you from ever taking another breath, and he's already robbing you, you don't know if he'd be willing to murder (or if he already had murdered) at that point. You lay him full of bullets, he goes down. You call the police. They arrest you, try you for murder, and convict you because you have admitted to killing the guy, and they can think of another, perhaps not equally, but certainly reasonably plausible story for what happened. He came in the house to talk to you about something. He thinks his wife, your sister, is cheating on him, maybe, and he decides to come over, unannounced, to ask for your help and to talk. Do you even have proof that you didn't let him in the house?

Plenty of situations where you'd be justified in using self-defense but it'd be impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was self-defense.

Are you being serious? That's your idea of justified self-defence? Shooting an unarmed man who you know personally and who didn't actually break in? Simply because you thought he might punch you? Why not shoot one of your good friends, if they threaten to punch you because of a minor altercation too, eh? If you could get away with such a flimsy story as that, any old person could gun anyone they choose down in their home and then make up a poor story as to why they shot them. If it's someone you know, you have absolutely no business gunning them down- unless you at least know they have a history of extreme and very serious violence that would raise a serious possibility that you should fear that they would be likely to kill you. Anything less than that and it's a pure cold-blooded murder.

[dima_76557]

Trayvon was in the process of obtaining an illegal gun when the shooting took place. Had the whole thing happened a couple weeks later, it's possible Trayvon would have been carrying a gun. In such a circumstance, would you feel more comfortable with only Trayvon having a gun and Zimmerman being unarmed?

Yes and no. The best trained ones (usually criminals) win anyway in such a game because it is simply easier and faster to attack others than it is to defend yourself with such a toy. If everybody knows that everybody has one, they may kill you "just in case". In countries where it is unlikely that the average citizen has a gun, they may just threaten you with one, but not necessarily kill you. Besides, the average Joe goes to work and doesn't have time enough to keep his skills sharp. Zimmerman would most likely have lost a gunfight against Trayvon. That's my problem with this approach of "guns for all". The only reasonable option you have to defend yourself in such circumstances is "let's do it to them before they do it to us", which makes society inherently more dangerous.

Moreover, some otherwise peaceful citizens may lose control over the stress of life or because of the heat, and simply start shooting at anything that moves. I find that equally frightening, actually.

[davidjosepha]

Shooting an unarmed man who you know personally and who didn't actually break in?

In-law doesn't imply you know the person well, like them, or consider them good people--I have several blood relatives I wouldn't want in my house. Going into an unlocked house that you do not own without the owner's permission is still "breaking in", even if nothing was broken in the process. And just because you haven't seen a weapon doesn't mean they are unarmed. As far as I'm concerned, if someone breaks into your house, you tell them that you are armed and will use your weapon if they attack you, and they still attack you, you are justified in defending yourself. I'm not going to risk my life to save someone who broke into my house and is now attempting to physically assault me.

Why not shoot one of your good friends, if they threaten to punch you because of a minor altercation too, eh?

No, because I trust my friends. There is not a doubt in my mind that if one of my friends knocked me out, I would wake up afterwards. Someone who was robbing me and who I could identify to the police? No, I wouldn't leave that one to chance.

[oxy60]

You all are picking out little tiny possible variances in the definition. You are all wrong! In the US the definition may end up being decided by a jury and it varies state by state.  This is not written in stone...

[davidjosepha]

You are all wrong!

I was not arguing what the law is, simply stating that A) there are foreseeable situations (whether my example qualifies or not) where one could act in self-defense but not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, and B) that I would feel completely justified in shooting someone under the circumstances I described, whether the law agrees or not.

[ranniks]

What do you think R-forever?

[nyiregyhazi]

In-law doesn't imply you know the person well, like them, or consider them good people--I have several blood relatives I wouldn't want in my house. Going into an unlocked house that you do not own without the owner's permission is still "breaking in", even if nothing was broken in the process. And just because you haven't seen a weapon doesn't mean they are unarmed

Totally unnacceptable as a defence. Would you say the same if your friend had wandered in- wondering why your front door was left open- and then charged at you for a laugh? That he broke in, so you ought to be able to shoot him if you so desire?  After all, you couldn't tell if he was joking, hey?  And shooting someone because they MIGHT be armed is not self-defence. And it's not "breaking in" at all either. This is why bailliffs are legally allowed to enter open windows to claim property. Different laws altogether apply.

No, because I trust my friends. There is not a doubt in my mind that if one of my friends knocked me out, I would wake up afterwards. Someone who was robbing me and who I could identify to the police? No, I wouldn't leave that one to chance.

So your personal trust or mistrust is supposed to be adequate grounding to excuse you shooting a man dead? I suppose that it would also be fine for you to shoot a guy from work who had once pushed you in a bar, if he drunkenly stumbled unarmed in your direction looking a little shifty and as if he could be about to throw a poorly coordinated punch in your direction? You would only even begin to have the right to kill a man you know under such circumstances as you detailed, if you knew that he had a track record of extreme and potentially deadly violence. A stranger might be a different matter, but there's no way you should have the right to gun down someone you know for entering an unlocked house. You ought to have proof that you had serious cause to have considered your life in real danger, for self-defence to even be considered. This appears to have been established in the acquittal spoken of in this thread- but it certainly isn't in your outrageous example of supposedly just cause for a shooting.

[timothy42b]

So your personal trust or mistrust is supposed to be adequate grounding to excuse you shooting a man dead?

That's quite obviously not what he said. 

I know in advance trying to use logic here will be futile.

But for the non US readers:  Self defense as a justification in the US does not merely require fearing for your life.  That is a necessary but not sufficient condition.  It requires that a "reasonable and prudent" person would be in fear of their life. 

How that is actually applied varies somewhat from state to state.  But that is the standard. 

In much of the US it is applied rather strictly and more people do end up charged, and convicted. 

Stand your ground is somewhat different, but did not apply in the Zimmerman defense, so it's not relevant here. 

[oxy60]

I was not arguing what the law is, simply stating that A) there are foreseeable situations (whether my example qualifies or not) where one could act in self-defense but not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, and B) that I would feel completely justified in shooting someone under the circumstances I described, whether the law agrees or not.

In the US the accused doesn't need to prove anything. All that is needed is to tear the state's case apart.

It sounds that you must live under a system where the accused must prove themselves innocent.

[davidjosepha]

It sounds that you must live under a system where the accused must prove themselves innocent.

You seem confused. My original comment was a response to Alistair, who said that Zimmerman should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. I posed a reasonably likely situation where one would be justified in using self-defense but it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. You responded by saying we were all wrong, and I responded explaining that this is what I was doing. Now I'm doing it again.

[nyiregyhazi]

You seem confused. My original comment was a response to Alistair, who said that Zimmerman should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. I posed a reasonably likely situation where one would be justified in using self-defense but it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense.

and for good reason. if a person's word for circumstances so flimsy were grounds for acquittal, people would generally get to walk away from any one to one murder Scott free. when nobody else is present, you cannot just say you were attacked by an unarmed man so you shot them dead and have that casually accepted. any cold blooded shooting without witnesses (presumably to the front rather than to the back) and where there is no evidence that the person had cause to fear their life (or was even attacked) will be assumed as murder, not as self-defense. if someone lunatic pulls a gun on you, they don't have a right to kill because you've tried to get it off them.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

What do you think R-forever?

Daaaang he went HAM!!!

The NAACP is just trying to make some money.

[j_menz]

Daaaang he went HAM!!!

I tried google translate, but didn't know where to start..... 

[faulty_damper]

What do you think R-forever?

Was that Obama smoking a joint in the last image of the video? Haha!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I tried google translate, but didn't know where to start..... 

Try urban dictionary.

[davidjosepha]

I tried google translate, but didn't know where to start..... 

hard as a ***

edit: appears as though pianostreet doesn't like that last word. Well, hopefully you can guess what it was supposed to be.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

hard as a ***

edit: appears as though pianostreet doesn't like that last word. Well, hopefully you can guess what it was supposed to be.

*highfive*

[oxy60]

and for good reason. if a person's word for circumstances so flimsy were grounds for acquittal, people would generally get to walk away from any one to one murder Scott free. when nobody else is present, you cannot just say you were attacked by an unarmed man so you shot them dead and have that casually accepted. any cold blooded shooting without witnesses (presumably to the front rather than to the back) and where there is no evidence that the person had cause to fear their life (or was even attacked) will be assumed as murder, not as self-defense. if someone lunatic pulls a gun on you, they don't have a right to kill because you've tried to get it off them.

Here, even a cop must justify shooting someone. First administrative leave w/ pay then Internal investigates, then our overzealous DA reviews and then, maybe the cop is cleared of maybe using excessive force. As far as us folks in the 'hood, we can't even show or indicate we have a weapon or say get off the property or we'll shoot.  That is a threat to use excessive force...

[gyzzzmo]

If everybody didnt have such easy gun-access in the USA, the cops wouldnt have be so trigger-happy. This case would likely have been very different then, no matter if there were racist motives or not.

[davidjosepha]

If everybody didnt have such easy gun-access in the USA, the cops wouldnt have be so trigger-happy. This case would likely have been very different then, no matter if there were racist motives or not.

It'd probably take me 6 months to figure out how to get a gun, go through a gun safety course, and get a gun legally in the US. It'd probably take me a month to figure out how to get a gun illegally. Banning guns will not solve our problems. Additionally, even if it would, the second amendment exists for more than just defending ourselves. Access to guns is the reason we were able to defeat the British, a (perceived) unjust ruler. The 2nd amendment was created in part to allow such a revolution to happen again, if it ever becomes necessary.

[ahinton]

It'd probably take me 6 months to figure out how to get a gun, go through a gun safety course, and get a gun legally in the US. It'd probably take me a month to figure out how to get a gun illegally. Banning guns will not solve our problems.

Of course it won't - but it would go some way to helping to solve at least some of them.

A friend who lives in a north eastern state says that he wouldn't live in Texas because there it's against the law not to own a gun...(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[davidjosepha]

Texas because there it's against the law not to own a gun...(!)...

Your friend may have "yanked your chain" so to speak

[ahinton]

Your friend may have "yanked your chain" so to speak

Not at all; his partial frivolity was as transpent as had been intended, though his point was no weaker for that...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Your friend may have "yanked your chain" so to speak

It matters, though, when you buy a pickup truck.

In the south of the US, you get your choices of options.  You can have a gun rack, or you can have turn signals.  This is so endemic in the culture that even southerners who have turn signals don't use them, as they don't expect them to be there. 

[davidjosepha]

and a country in which the idiotic concept of ‘race’ (in all ‘races’) is still so very important.

I hate to ruin the anti-US pro-Europe circlejerk even more, but it appears as though race is important in certain Euro countries as well. Though, of course, if you were to acknowledge that it exists, you'd be obligated to try and stop it, so perhaps it'd best for your traditional ways to not. It's pretty easy to ignore racism when only 5% of your continent is non-white.

In the south of the US, you get your choices of options.  You can have a gun rack, or you can have turn signals.  This is so endemic in the culture that even southerners who have turn signals don't use them, as they don't expect them to be there. 

hahahahaha

[oxy60]

It matters, though, when you buy a pickup truck.

In the south of the US, you get your choices of options.  You can have a gun rack, or you can have turn signals.  This is so endemic in the culture that even southerners who have turn signals don't use them, as they don't expect them to be there. 

You speak with a bit of authority. Do you live in Texas or thereabouts? As far as turn signals go it seems that everywhere they are used less and less. Drives me nuts!

Have you noticed a popular brand of truck? Do some have memorial inscriptions on the back window?

[faulty_damper]

As far as turn signals go it seems that everywhere they are used less and less. Drives me nuts!

This phenomenon may be due to the increasing narcissism and egotism of the younger generation. Read Generation Me and it explains this.
https://www.generationme.org/index.html

[the_fervid_pig]

I hate to ruin the anti-US pro-Europe circlejerk even more, but it appears as though race is important in certain Euro countries as well. Though, of course, if you were to acknowledge that it exists, you'd be obligated to try and stop it, so perhaps it'd best for your traditional ways to not. It's pretty easy to ignore racism when only 5% of your continent is non-white.

hahahahaha

I think it's a little more than that, in the UK it's about 20%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British