by russell
hey, what the hell, i'll go there.
i'm not, remotely, surprised by the verdict. i'm also not particularly sure it should have gone any other way. murder, of whatever degree, is a heavy charge, and really deserves ironclad proof.
when the evidence is one person's word against another's, and the other guy is dead, ironclad is hard to come by.
manslaughter, less cut and dry, but still deserves strong proof.
unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a criminal statute against being a raving wannabe mall cop asshole with a gun who needlessly provokes a fight and then kills the other guy. emphasis on unfortunately.
so, the outcome is what it is.
anybody want to lay odds on whether zimmerman loses his concealed carry license over this? you're a fool if you bet on 'yes'.
what i feel totally confident in saying is that if martin was white, he'd be alive today.
" I don't know which majority is vaster, percentage-wise."
Oh, permit holders, that's well established. Concealed carry permit holders are actually more law abiding on average than the police. A lot less likely to shoot the wrong person, too, when they do shoot someone. It's not even close.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM
For a week, yes. My guess is he was still a stranger to quite a few people.
Other than him describing that it was suspicious realtime? You think he was making it up as he went, or that he'd planned that explanation in advance? This sounds to me like you believe that Zimmerman had already tried to do harm to Martin, and was plowing the road to make that happen. Which to me, absent evidence to that effect, sounds like pure fantasy. See, I don't really buy the explanation that Zimmerman so convinced himself that he was seeing the boogeyman that he hallucinated or otherwise imagined strange behavior.
"Right across the street from a shopping area" is a mile walk. But perhaps you're right. It's even more of a walk for anyone who might be short-cutting through the neighborhood, though. And it's not much of a shortcut; it's all right-angle turns, and you don't save any time by doing that. But it's at least possible that there could be foot traffic through the neighborhood. I don't know that this has been much discussed in the course of the case.
Ok, then. It's just fine to generalize that because there is a lot of low-level racism, that Zimmerman was therefore motivated by racism? This is what I call a leap. You might not think it's a leap, but I'm saying this argument doesn't hold water. I am not saying that Zimmerman isn't in any way racist, just that your attempt to paint him as racist is seriously lacking in support.
It does? See, I see it this way: Zimmerman suspects that Martin might be one of said assholes, and is trying to get the police involved so that he can find out for sure. But there's this problem: the police take some time to show up, so his candidate asshole might not be investigated.
Of course, that's pure fantasy, but not much different kind of fantasy that makes the connection that Zimmerman is stating that Martin absolutely is one of said assholes.
I don't expect I will get much agreement on these points, which is fine.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 19, 2013 at 11:50 PM
You think he was making it up as he went, or that he'd planned that explanation in advance?
I think Zimmerman is a moron. A moron who primed himself into expecting the absolute worst. So he saw suspicious behavior. He saw signs of drug abuse (there was none). He saw reaching into the wasteband to check a non-existent gun. He saw lots of things that weren't there. If he hadn't been a moron, he might have noticed that he was acting paranoid, but he just didn't have the self-awareness for that.
I mean, what kind of idiot tries to lie to a judge about their assets?
Posted by: Turbulence | July 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM
This is one of the problems with arming millions of people, and allowing those people to concealed carry. Lots of those people are morons. They have extremely poor judgement. Like the family whose 5 year old shot his little sister with his real loaded rifle because it didn't occur to the parents that it might be loaded and meh, just leave it lying around the living room. Because these people don't understand their own limitations, they're a danger to us all.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 20, 2013 at 12:04 AM
For a week, yes. My guess is he was still a stranger to quite a few people.
I don't know everyone on my *street*, let alone my neighborhood. One of the odd things Ive heard several times is about being suspicious of people in the neighborhood that one doesn't know to live there. I lived in my last house for over ten years and I certainly wouldn't've expected to recognize *most* people living in my neighborhood. I might have recognized everyone on my block at one time or another. And Im on foot or bike a *lot*.
So the idea that Id see someone walking in the alley and think "this person, I don't know them so they probably don't belong here"- I don't know how people can think this. Unless they live in a small town with a lot of socializing and not much turnover.
Other than him describing that it was suspicious realtime? You think he was making it up as he went, or that he'd planned that explanation in advance? This sounds to me like you believe that Zimmerman had already tried to do harm to Martin, and was plowing the road to make that happen. Which to me, absent evidence to that effect, sounds like pure fantasy. See, I don't really buy the explanation that Zimmerman so convinced himself that he was seeing the boogeyman that he hallucinated or otherwise imagined strange behavior.
Well, I had just ridiculed the idea that Zimmerman set out to harm Martin (or anyone) that night, so that would seem like a strange position to assume I was taking. otoh, did Zimmerman imagine Martin's behavior? He certainly imagined several details that were wrong- Martin wasn't high, and there's no reason I can imagine for him to reach into his waistband since he wasn't carrying anything there. So since we know for a friggin fact that Zimmerman was making incorrect observations and drawing wildly incorrect inferences from them (at some distance, at night, and possibly colored by his expectations including some racial bias), yes I think it's safe to say "Zimmerman was making some incorrect observations".
Once we admit that to be true, it's easy to doubt the rest of his observations as well. Thus, I wonder how "strange" Martin's behavior was, in fact. This seems like a much safer position than assuming that Zimmerman was correct in everything he said that is unverifiable when he has proven to be entirely unreliable on things that were verifiable. Im sure Zimmerman *believed* Martin to be acting strangely, but I wonder what objective facts that was based on.
Because while Zimmerman doesn't have a motive for making stuff up, he does have a demonstrated tendency to err badly on the side of 'dangerous, drug-using, armed criminal'. On the other hand- what reason would Martin have had for acting 'strangely' or 'suspiciously'?
"Right across the street from a shopping area" is a mile walk.
walkscore.com showed me the closest services at just under a half-mile, and eyeballing it I think you could shave some of that off walking across parking lots instead of on roads. That's pretty walkable.
. And it's not much of a shortcut; it's all right-angle turns, and you don't save any time by doing that.
I was thinking of people living/staying there. Quite a few people. Some of whom will be minors, or without a car at the moment, or feeling like a stroll. Point is, walkers seem like they'd be a relatively common occurrence. This walker was known to be a normal kid on a normal mission, yet he seemed like a drugged-up armed criminal to Zimmerman. And I wonder, since we know Martin wasn't a drugged-up armed criminal, why Zimmmerman didn't get that 'vibe' from the other walkers he presumably saw in the neighborhood from time to time.
Ok, then. It's just fine to generalize that because there is a lot of low-level racism, that Zimmerman was therefore motivated by racism? This is what I call a leap.
When I number points one, two, and three, and you quote point #3 and say that it's a leap from just there to the conclusion, I do not know what to say other than to recap what just occurred.
It does? See, I see it this way: Zimmerman suspects that Martin might be one of said assholes, and is trying to get the police involved so that he can find out for sure. But there's this problem: the police take some time to show up, so his candidate asshole might not be investigated.
Of course, that's pure fantasy, but not much different kind of fantasy that makes the connection that Zimmerman is stating that Martin absolutely is one of said assholes.
I think we're fairly close on this point, with one critical exception. It's *possible* that Zimmerman meant Martin was just possibly in the group. But what he said, unless it's a non sequitur, put Martin firmly in the group.
Now, it could be shorthand for the more complex idea 'these thieves always get away and maybe this one of them'. People don't always say exactly what they mean, so Im fine with leaving some wiggle room on the matter. But I repeat- *nothing* in Zimmerman's call or actions (including, I think, failing to recognize that even if Martin were innocent he might flee a stranger following him around at night) suggest anything but certainty of guilt. *Maybe* he really felt otherwise and was just excited and angry. But he was definitive about Martin being high, not acting "right", and suggesting that he was armed. Not "these guys", but Martin...
These are not equal cases. One of them is supported by the evidence. The other exists because the evidence, such as it is, cannot exclude it. Just as the evidence cannot exclude the idea that Zimmerman intended to kill from the get-go, although I (still) find that a ridiculous theory.
The most likely conclusion IMO is that Zimmerman was relatively sure of Martin's guilt from early in his observations.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 20, 2013 at 01:57 AM
Posted by: CharlesWT | July 20, 2013 at 02:53 AM
"This is one of the problems with arming millions of people, and allowing those people to concealed carry. Lots of those people are morons."
I'm sure you enjoy believing that, and I suppose "lots of" them are, in the sense that if you got them all together, they wouldn't fit in my living room. But it's kind of hard to square a meaningful interpretation of this claim with the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
Unless maybe you think morons are unusually law abiding...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2013 at 08:26 AM
Some people work on their rap lyrics and footwork while walking.
I'm trying to work out if your tongue is in your cheek, or not.
if you got them all together, they wouldn't fit in my living room.
Small percentages across large populations = lots of people. And, in any specific case, we're talking about one person.
Which is to say, Turb's point aside, we're not talking about All Concealed Carry Permit Holders, we're talking about Zimmerman.
Who is a demonstrable hothead.
Again, not trying to crucify the guy, just making observations from the public record and from his own statements and actions.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 09:36 AM
"Who is a demonstrable hothead."
I'd love to see somebody demonstrate it, without assuming the case the prosecution brought, and the jury rejected, was true. It appears to me that the "hothead" here was Martin, who assaulted Zimmerman.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2013 at 10:11 AM
it's kind of hard to square a meaningful interpretation of this claim with the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
The parents of that 5 year old boy who shot his 2 year old sister? No charges have been filed against them. As measured by crime rate statistics, these morons have done nothing wrong. The law and your crime statistics treat them as better than me, because I jaywalked this morning.
Of course the crime rate for gun-toting morons is low: we've decided that when negligent morons who shouldn't be allowed near a weapon end up killing their family members, no crime has been committed. That doesn't mean those people aren't dangerous.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 20, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Of course, you realize that events such as you describe are so rare that, even were they counted, they'd have no impact on the crime rates at all? They'd vanish in the rounding error.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Cases where a 5 year old shoots his 2 year old sister are indeed rare. But cases where a moron who shouldn't have a gun shoots someone they shouldn't are quite common and generally not prosecuted. We just shrug and say 'it was an accident', you know, just like when a drunk driver ploughs into a pedestrian, that's an accident like a tornado and no one is at fault.
Posted by: Turbulence | July 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I'd love to see somebody demonstrate it
Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest.
Restraining order granted to his previous fiancee.
46 calls to 911 in 8 years.
What the public record says TO ME, is 'excitable boy'. YMMV.
What 'appears to be so' to you is unknown, we do not know what happened in the time between when Martin and Zimmerman came face to face and when the fight began.
You might think you know, but you do not. No-one does but Zimmerman, and his memory may not be reliable, let alone his public statements. He's not a disinterested witness.
What we do know is that, other than participating in sparring matches with his buddies, Martin had no, zero, zip, nada, zilch record of violent behavior.
A number of people on this board are martial artists, and no doubt participate in sparring matches on a regular basis that achieve or exceed the violence of the stuff in the 'MARTIN's VIOLENT PAST REVEALED' videos that wanna-be truth-tellers have treated us to online.
Those wanna-be truth-tellers including Zimmerman's attorneys. Bad form.
And, again, he said again, I'm not trying to crucify the guy, just making observations from the public record and Zimmerman's own statements and actions.
The one and only basis for your claims here, Brett, are Zimmerman's own statements. Which are not entirely consistent with each other over time, and which are not entirely consistent with the physical evidence.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Brett: ...the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
Leave aside that "CCW permit holders" are only a subset of "responsible gun owners". Just compare the profile (if you'll pardon the expression) of CCW permit holders with the profile of "the general population", which is an even bigger set than gun owners. Crime is a young man's hobby; obtaining CCW permits probably isn't. What's the "crime rate" by age for CCW permit holders versus others?
Whatever it may be, I repeat: Brett is just a bit more likely to shoot somebody during the rest of his life than I am. He and I are both middle-aged white guys. Neither of us has the remotest desire, at the moment, to shoot anybody. But neither of us can honestly say he will NEVER feel that somebody in front of us NEEDS shooting. Brett (says he) owns guns; I (know I) don't. A moment's impulse to shoot somebody is easier to overcome when you don't have a gun handy.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | July 20, 2013 at 11:22 AM
"Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest."
The first part was precisely what Martin did.
Yet, the cop at the receiving end of Zimmerman's punch did not shoot the Z, the f&cking punk and demonstrable thug.
Despite the evidence claimed here that cops are more likely to shoot and kill than concealed carry licensees.
I wonder if the fact that cops are "gummint" and concealed carry licensees are "militia" might be skewing the skew here?
Posted by: Countme-In | July 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM
"Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest."
Years ago, undercover cop, but maybe on point. Certainly more in the way of violence than *I've* done.
"Restraining order granted to his previous fiancee."
Restraining order granted against is previous fiancee, too. Got any idea how easy they are to get? You ask for them, you get them.
"46 calls to 911 in 8 years.
Now you're being silly. He was in the neighborhood watch, calling 911 was part of the job.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Whatever, Brett.
However you want to construe Zimmerman's record regarding rash behavior, it's greater than Martin's. Because Martin doesn't really have one, in spite of the efforts of an army of online pundits trying to manufacture one.
End of story.
As noted, none of us were there at the moment of the confrontation, so anyone who claims to know exactly how it all went down is talking out of their @ss.
Your claims about what happened are all based on Zimmerman's testimony. If every single thing he said was true, and was an accurate description of exactly what happened, Zimmerman's response was understandable.
Even in that event, his behavior leading up to the incident demonstrates poor judgement and is consistent with a demonstrated history of overreaction. But those are not criminal acts. Foolish yes, criminal no.
To the degree his testimony is less than accurate, it's less clear that his actions were warranted or justifiable.
We'll never know the truth of the matter. I won't, and you won't. If you say you do, you're talking out of your @ss.
Feel free, however you can expect the rest of us to afford your comments all of the consideration they will deserve.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM
"Years ago .... "
So what? Years ago for you might mean 35 years ago; this was eight years ago for the then 20-year old Zimmerman. Martin was 17 and the excuse "years ago" is useless for him.
"Certainly more in the way of violence than *I've* done."
That is one funky statement -- "more in the way of violence" is such a delicate, mush-mouthed phrasing for Zimmerman's assault of a police officer, unlike your descriptions of Treyvon's alleged violence.
Also, more in the way of violence than Trayvon Martin had done last year, the year before last, and years ago.
Posted by: Countme-In | July 20, 2013 at 01:00 PM
"As noted, none of us were there at the moment of the confrontation, so anyone who claims to know exactly how it all went down is talking out of their @ss."
There's a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 20, 2013 at 02:40 PM
"There's a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTGnh0rcQsc
Posted by: Countme-In | July 20, 2013 at 03:51 PM
I'd love to see somebody demonstrate it, without assuming the case the prosecution brought, and the jury rejected, was true. It appears to me that the "hothead" here was Martin, who assaulted Zimmerman.
You keep repeating that you know who attacked who, although it is not known. When pressed you point out that Zimmerman was getting the worst of the fight and therefore couldn't have started it. Then you get to learn that the winner does not always start the fight, and that there are plenty of ways to start fights that don't leave big marks.
Then you lurk for a while, then you start over again. Hopefully Ive saved us all some time on this, and you can either start from this point, or proceed immediately back to lurking.
Also, you've had the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" explained to you before. Try to remember it, especially since fancying yourself an expert on law on the Constitution comes off rather badly when you get basic legal principles wrong repeatedly.
The jury could not find that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin or did not fear for his life, beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean they found him credible- they could even think it *likely* that he committed manslaughter, but just not beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is not complicated. Learning things that one doesn't like to learn is an important skill, otherwise you spend life in the same loops, failing to learn the same thing over and over.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 20, 2013 at 08:44 PM
There's a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread.
On the off chance that this is directed my way, allow me to be crystal clear.
I do not know how their confrontation played out, I do not know who initiated the fight or how.
I don't know, if Martin did in fact throw the first punch, if he did so based on a reasonable sense of being threatened by Zimmerman, or if he just wanted to lay a beating on a rude creepy-@ss cracker.
I don't know any of those things, so I have no opinion about them.
I have opinions about other things, based on things that are known from the public record, but those are no more than my opinions.
What I seriously doubt is that Zimmerman took any of the actions he took with an intent to kill or in any way harm anyone. I don't know that for a fact, but I don't see any intent of that nature anywhere in what is available in the public record.
But in the end, none of us know exactly what happened.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 09:20 PM
"You keep repeating that you know who attacked who, although it is not known."
Yes, it's unknown in a strict sense to anyone but Zimmerman. But Zimmerman wasn't just getting "the worst" of the fight, there's no physical evidence that he did anything to Martin AT ALL besides shooting him. An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman's version of events, it would be rather strange if Zimmerman himself were the aggressor.
But, yes, the matter will always be sufficiently in doubt for people to imagine that poor innocent Martin was the victim, and Zimmerman a ruthless killer.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 20, 2013 at 09:28 PM
Also, not for nothing, but:
But, no, "stalking", AKA following somebody, even if he HAD done that, was not a legal excuse for Martin to assault him.
Maybe so, but apparently stalking ought to have excluded self-defense as a basis for acquittal.
Bolds mine.
FL XLVI title 776.041
FL XLVI title 776.08
Just saying.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 09:37 PM
An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman's version of events
As well as about 547 others.
Did Zimmerman verbally threaten Martin?
Did Zimmerman push Martin?
Did Zimmerman swing at Martin and miss?
Did Zimmerman run at Martin or otherwise behave in a threatening manner?
I don't know. Neither do you. Maybe you should give it a rest.
Posted by: russell | July 20, 2013 at 09:39 PM
Yes, it's unknown in a strict sense to anyone but Zimmerman. But Zimmerman wasn't just getting "the worst" of the fight, there's no physical evidence that he did anything to Martin AT ALL besides shooting him. An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman's version of events, it would be rather strange if Zimmerman himself were the aggressor.
The evidence is consistent with Zimmerman starting the fight (eg by grabbing Martin, trying to stop him from fleeing). It's consistent with Zimmerman wanting to kill Martin from the get-go. *Consistent* doesn't mean something happened that way; this situation allows for many consistent stories. Some people admit they don't know how it went down, others say maybe some events give them hints but they can't know for sure.
And some folks just know what they want to have happened.
And no, there's nothing 'strange' about scenarios where Zimmerman grabs Martin, tries to tackle him, etc. Those are not only consistent with the physical evidence, but also consistent with the roles of the two people up to that point (Zimmerman pursuing and trying to stop Martin from 'escaping', Martin trying to flee). To my mind that makes this more likely, but how much more likely, who knows.
The one thing I am sure of: if you had political motivation for Zimmerman to be the bad guy, all we'd be hearing about is domestic violence, assaulting cops, etc. Some people, like russell, gather up all the evidence and weigh it. Others grab what they want and try to sweep the rest away.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Yes, you can invent scenarios for which there is a complete lack of evidence under which Zimmerman was the bad guy that night. They might even have happened, and there might be a unicorn behind that tree over there.
But, why are you going to, when there's a simple version of events that happens to be consistent with both the evidence you have, and the lack of the evidence you don't have? Why prefer the complex scenario to the simple?
Look, I know somebody who's paranoid, I've talked them down from numerous obsessions when their meds got out of wack, and I'm familiar with this kind of thinking, where the conclusion comes first, and when the evidence doesn't agree with it, instead of accepting that the conclusion was wrong, you start inventing wild scenarios to sustain the conclusion you were committed to pre-evidence.
Fortunately, my paranoid friend is sufficiently well motivated, that while not using reason spontaneously in these situations, they respond to reason when it's pointed out to them.
What's your excuse?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2013 at 07:40 AM
"Medicated", not "motivated".
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2013 at 08:22 AM
Two questions for you, Brett.
1. Do you think everything happened exactly according to Zimmerman's story because he's utterly trustworthy, despite his motivation to avoid criminal charges?
2. Do you think Zimmerman did anything at all that was wrong-headed or unnecessary, leading up to the moments before the shooting, that precipitated whatever confrontation took place?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 21, 2013 at 08:51 AM
Earlier in this thread, Brett tried to distinguish between a "choirboy" and Trayvon Martin. Given the evidence and the allegations at issue, I have to conclude Brett doesn't know too many choirboys. Choir boys sing in church. They are not, in Joseph Wambaugh's memorable phrase, a bunch of eunuchs with their lunch money pinned to their underwear. In my adolescence, as an alter boy in a pretty conservative community, I got up to just about all the stuff that Brett clutches pearls at the thought Trayvon Martin may have done.
So, Brett, here is where I go Colonel Jessup on you. Because the truth is that Trayvon Martin was just an American kid. He could have been anyone's son. Disowning him, writing him off as a "thug", consigns him to a large pile of children discarded in the ugly history of "white" supremacy that has blighted both the US and Canada.
And in the place you don't talk about, the place only your greatest writers ever go, you know you won't get away with it: that writing off your children always carries a price tag. And I'll bet you know, deep down, what pasting a label of "thug" on a kid like Trayvon Martin costs you. But just in case you don't admit it to yourself, I'll tell you. It costs you your freedom. Because people shivering in fear of their own invented boogey men aren't free, Brett. They have to have protection from those boogey men. That's why you pay taxes and burden your kids and grandkids with run away debt to support a grotesque prison-industrial complex. To hide under the covers from the horrid shadow of Trayvon Martin, thug you've invented. That's why your police get more militarized all the time. That's why you let them get away with sick dominance games. It's why, when the police take people's property, break into their houses, terrorize their kids and slaughter their pets, Americans sit still instead of going to the voting booth and throwing out the elected officials responsible. Because any humiliation beats facing the boogey man you created.
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary kid. An ordinary American kid. He could have been anyone's son. He died because a wannabe in the neighbourhood watch with terminally lousy judgment had a gun. That's the truth. And your pasting the dehumanizing label of "thug" on him tells me you can't handle that particular truth.
Posted by: John Spragge | July 21, 2013 at 09:00 AM
I think you must have a remarkably low opinion of the average American kid. You do realize that the majority of American kids don't do drugs, don't have stolen property found in their lockers, and so forth?
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary example of an American kid going wrong. It's not a rare thing, or the crime rate in the black community would be a lot lower. But it's not something we should ignore.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Leaving aside that nobody came close to proving the property in question stolen, I'd bet that virtually all North American kids who don't grow up in monastaries or (possibly) on Amish farms have things pass through their hands that fell of a truck at some point. I certainly did, and as I've said before, I was an actual alter boy. You're in denial about two things, Brett: the way North American kids (and, let's face it, adults) actually behave, and your never stated implication that petty vandalism, some anomalous items in a locker, and normal teenage rough-housing would add up to a diagnosis of "thug" if Trayvon Martin had been an upper middle class kid of European background.
Posted by: John Spragge | July 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM
While I understand you're under no obligation (well, maybe not no obligation, if you wish to engage in serious conversation in good faith) to answer any of my questions, I still wonder why you don't, Brett.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 21, 2013 at 01:08 PM
And I wonder why anyone bothers to engage Brett in conversation as if he is arguing in good faith.
Posted by: dr ngo | July 21, 2013 at 01:40 PM
So a killer has no burden of proof (propensity of evidence) that his killing someone was justified? The burden of proof is entirely on the state to prove a negative 'that a killer was not in fear for his life'
IANAL but this attitude twists my mind.
I can give Zimmerman the benefit of some doubt but would a reasonable person have been in fear of for his life? Knowing that the police were on their way and would be there any moment now, short of seeing a gun or knife if I were in Georges shoes that night I would have held off on pulling the trigger. At least the first shot would have been in the air. Nothing that George did that night strikes me as reasonable behavior for an adult.
Posted by: jeff | July 21, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary example of an American kid going wrong.
absolute idiocy.
Posted by: cleek | July 21, 2013 at 03:11 PM
I still wonder why you don't, Brett.
It's Brett's way.
If you disagree with him, it is clear evidence of:
1. stupidity
2. willful blindness, probably due to ideological absolutism
3. bad faith
Or some combination thereof. To all of which we can now apparently add:
4. clinical mental illness.
Brett often has good and insightful things to say, but 'discussion' in the sense of a give and take of ideas is not in his repertoire.
Not a stupid mind, but an inflexible one.
What is the basis for concluding that Martin assaulted Zimmerman without cause: Zimmerman said so.
It's a narrative that is largely consistent with the basic physical evidence. ZImmerman took a beating, Martin did not. A large number of possible narratives, also consistent with those basic facts, but Brett likes Zimmerman's better.
Zimmerman's story is not completely consistent with other things we know from the public record. That doesn't rule out the possibility that his account is 100% truthful and accurate to the best of his ability to recall. Sometimes apparent inconsistencies are explainable. Sometimes people remember things differently than other folks, and/or than how they actually happened.
But neither would it lead the thoughtful person to accept his account without question.
Unless you're Brett.
Posted by: russell | July 21, 2013 at 05:39 PM
The burden of proof is entirely on the state to prove a negative 'that a killer was not in fear for his life'
If my understanding of the Florida law is correct, the answer to this is yes.
Posted by: russell | July 21, 2013 at 05:48 PM
No, the burden on the state is to prove a negative, that a killer was not reasonably in fear of their life. Being phobic isn't a license to kill, you have to have been in a situation where a reasonable person would fear for their life.
You know, like trapped on your back, getting the crap beaten out of you?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2013 at 07:05 PM
A law professor makes - yet again - an important point that Brett continues to ignore. (The full article, linked, provides more legal detail.)
"The jury apparently began its deliberations at the point Martin hit Zimmerman. But, by ignoring all that happened up to that point, the jury failed to consider whether Martin’s blow was defensive and thus legal.
That was a threshold issue to be decided."
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/20/3041859/ignoring-race-a-mistake.html#storylink=cpy
Posted by: dr ngo | July 21, 2013 at 07:31 PM
And allow me to be crystal clear in return: it was not directed in your way, or even in your general direction.
In this as well as in nearly all other things that we have discussed, I find you to be as evenhanded (which is not to say that you don't have an opinion, nor to say that you are unemotional) as I could ever hope to be myself.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 21, 2013 at 08:38 PM
Count, that talking-glove video is the funniest thing I have seen in days. Which may just mean that I need to get out more, but: thanks!
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 21, 2013 at 08:45 PM
"The jury apparently began its deliberations at the point Martin hit Zimmerman. But, by ignoring all that happened up to that point, the jury failed to consider whether Martin’s blow was defensive and thus legal.
That was a threshold issue to be decided."
The problem here is that we had actual, objective evidence of the blows and the gunshot. We had no evidence at all that Zimmerman did squat prior to Martin's punch that would have made the punch legally justified self defense.
So if they'd started out with that threshold question, it would have been a damned short examination.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 21, 2013 at 09:07 PM
Anyone who questions the validity of the questions about the rightness of the jury's decision and the appropriateness of the prosecution's decisions has a perfect right to do so. We can believe the prosecutors did their best with the law they had, and that the jury made an inevitable or at least defensible decision, and still demand a review of the law. Whatever anyone's view of the jury's choices, it still makes sense to conclude that defects in the law in Florida set George Zimmerman on a fatal collision course with Trayvon Martin.
Posted by: John Spragge | July 21, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Just curious, Brett - did you actually read the article I linked to?
Posted by: dr ngo | July 21, 2013 at 11:08 PM
From end to end. Speculation based on racism which has only been imputed to Zimmerman, not demonstrated. The idea that Zimmerman somehow acted in a way as to make Martin's assault fall into the category of self defense is the unicorn behind the tree: It could be there, but no actual evidence supports the idea.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 06:58 AM
From end to end. Speculation based on racism which has only been imputed to Zimmerman, not demonstrated.
That is correct, and is a fair point.
I am absolutely among those who believe that Zimmerman responded differently to Martin because he was black.
I'm sure the fact that there had been burglaries allegedly by young black men was a factor. That's a reasonable cause to notice and possibly report to police a young black man, walking through your neighborhood, that you don't recognize.
Zimmerman goes beyond this.
'He's up to no good'
'He's on drugs or something'
'He's got his hand in his waistband'
'Something's wrong with him'
'He's got something in his hand'
This is not 'I don't know this guy, he might be one of the folks who have done burglaries, maybe the cops should check him out'.
This is an assumption of wrong-doing that is insupportable based on what we know of what Martin was actually doing. Which was (a) walking and (b) looking at houses.
There are a number of unicorns behind the tree in this incident; among them is the idea that Martin was doing anything whatsoever that should have been seen as suspicious.
It could be there, but no actual evidence supports it.
Zimmerman's reaction to Martin was well beyond 'I don't know this guy'.
There is also the discrepancy between Zimmerman's account of the face-to-face encounter with Martin, and Rachel Jeantel's.
Jeantel:
"why are you following me?"
"what are you doing around here?"
Zimmerman:
"What the f***s your problem, homie?"
"Hey man, I don't have a problem?"
"You do now"
What's with the 'ghetto' talk in Zimmerman's account?
What I take away from all of this is a fairly dramatic overreaction on the part of Zimmerman, and one colored by Martin's race.
Just my opinion.
I would also point out that 'just my opinion' is supported by the nearly universal experience of black people, and young black men especially, of being targets of unjustified, unprovoked suspicion, on a consistent and frequent basis. It's just a reality they live with, and it sucks.
I would also point out that assuming, as Zimmerman apparently did, that ANY young black man in his neighborhood who he did not recognize was likely one of the alleged burglars is, inherently, racist.
It is a prejudice based on race.
It is an exact analogue to:
That guy looks Hispanic, and I don't know him, so he must be an illegal immigrant.
That guy looks like some kind of poor white trash, so he must be cooking up meth in a trailer somewhere.
Etc etc etc.
Way way upthread I called Zimmerman a racist, which is likely unfair. 'Racist' implies a kind of settled animus, based purely on skin color, that I don't see in Zimmerman.
What I do see in Zimmerman is 'young black boy, he must be just like all of the young black boys who do X Y or Z'.
And that kind of leap is something that is EXTRAORDINARILY common when the subject under discussion is young black boys, to a degree much greater than for young boys of other skin tones.
And that leap is racist.
So yes, racism is not explicitly demonstrated in the public record. There is just a lot of stuff here that quacks like a duck, all of which causes me to hold the OPINION that, where Martin not black, he'd be alive today.
YMMV.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 07:59 AM
"What the f***s your problem, homie?"
"Hey man, I don't have a problem?"
"You do now"
What's with the 'ghetto' talk in Zimmerman's account?"
This question is actually funny when you take into account all of Jeantrls testimony, which included her share (crazy%&$ cracker?) what you refer to as "ghetto" talk. The term itself is pretty racist. So perhaps its your racism tainting this discussion?
Posted by: Marty | July 22, 2013 at 08:58 AM
Seriously, Marty?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 22, 2013 at 09:08 AM
So perhaps its your racism tainting this discussion?
It was 'creepy-@ss cracker', not 'crazy-@ss cracker', and I agree that it's a racist comment.
Black people are also capable of racism. To assume otherwise would be, well, racist.
Sucks when it's directed at people like you, though, doesn't it?
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 09:15 AM
in FL, "cracker" historically has a different meaning than it does elsewhere.
i don't know if Martin knew that.
Posted by: cleek | July 22, 2013 at 09:58 AM
from cleek's link:
It would certainly harsh some mellows if Trayvon had been overheard addressing Zimmerman thusly just before the confrontation:
""What cracker is this ... that deafes our ears / With this abundance of superfluous breath?"
Posted by: Countme-In | July 22, 2013 at 10:16 AM
One reason the verdict is so deveastating is that Trayvon was ordinary.
The efforts to smear him...
The thing is if you take an ordinary kid, shoot him, and then smear him, then that makes every other kid vulernerable.
And people who recognize the ordinariness of Trayvon understand that.
I suppose on one level the desire to make Zimmerman into a victim of a Willie-Hortonized Trayvon is a desire for people to protect themselves from the fear that something like this could happen to them or to their sons.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | July 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM
The 'creepy' part of the 'cracker' talk was as it seems spot-on.
And some people seem not be used to the fact that youngsters of all shapes tend to use offensive language among themselves when referring to adults. The use of words frowned upon is part of the game (also the use of positive words as insults and negative ones as praise).
Posted by: Hartmut | July 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Yes, you can invent scenarios for which there is a complete lack of evidence under which Zimmerman was the bad guy that night. They might even have happened, and there might be a unicorn behind that tree over there.
Well, there's evidence that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin and Martin was- after realizing he was being pursued by a strange adult at night- fleeing. There is no evidence that Zimmerman *stopped* pursuing Martin or that Martin became the aggressor. By your logic I should definitely say that Zimmerman started the fight. But Im open to the possibility that, since the evidence is so limited about who started it, we should prefer to admit our ignorance.
There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. There is no physical evidence that Martin started the fight. Who started the fight is a complete unknown (except to Zimmerman). You obviously prefer one scenario to the other, to the point of saying that if your preferred scenario isn't excluded by the evidence we must accept it, or accept that it might have been unicorns.
But, why are you going to, when there's a simple version of events that happens to be consistent with both the evidence you have, and the lack of the evidence you don't have? Why prefer the complex scenario to the simple?
Occam's Razor, you do not know how to wield it. There is nothing 'more complex' about either of these scenarios:
1)Zimmerman caught up with Martin and grabbed him to stop him from running away
2)Zimmerman caught up with Martin, who was spooked by the pursuit and punched Zimmerman
Unicorns, now, that would be more complex. A third party who actually shot Martin that Zimmerman was trying to cover for, that would be more complex.
If you imagine the one where the black guy isn't the aggressor is somehow more 'complex'; let's just say that if you're going to practice psychotherapy without a license you might want to chase down the imaginary klansman whispering in your ear. "A black kid who isn't violent at the drop of a hat? Might as well imagine unicorns!"
I'm familiar with this kind of thinking, where the conclusion comes first, and when the evidence doesn't agree with it
Yes, I imagine that you are quite familiar with that kind of thinking. As a matter of fact, I hear you're up for an award.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM
I think that (to the limitied extent that it possible to understand another person's mind) both Trayvon and Zimmerman reacted to each other at least partly based on racial stereotypes.
However, Trayvon wasn't actually doing anything wrong. Zimmerman was stalking and pursuing which, given the comments from 911 and given that he had no basis for following Trayvon other than a racial sereoptype, was wrong.
The "creepy" part of Trayvon's attitude toward Zimmerman was accurate.
In other words, if their interaction had consisted of Zimmerman simply driving by, the two parties might have thought of each other in terms of racial stereotypes but there would have been no incident.
But Zimmerman acted on his racial stereotype.
There's also a tremendous amount of history lurking behind this incident, a history of racially motivated killings of black men by white men. It's blinkered to pretend that away. I don't think it is any harder to see why an unarmed black teenager would be afraid of a stranger who accosts him than for a woman alone to be nervous about a man who approaches her.
And it is logical for a person who is running away to run between houses. Makes a lot more sense than to run down the street.
It also makes sense to turn and fight the pursuer if the pursuer gets too close.
That's what i would do, if some guy was chasing me.
Actually I'd run up to a house and bang on the door, but I'm a white woman. A black teenager would not be able to assume, as I can, that the people inside would provide refuge.
Zimmerman should have been trying to defuse the situation. That should have been part of his security guard training. Instead it looks to me like his racial profling attitude, plus his I-need-a-gun-to-feel-like-a-man attiude and his propensity for pickig fights he can't win all led him to keep pursuing when he didn't need to pursue at all. He went way past anything that could be considered necessary for his job.
So I think that both had some negative attitudes about race, but Trayvon's was behavior in this incident was defensive and Zimmerman's was hostile and aggressive.
And it all happened within a context of a culture where historical race relationships are still being played out.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | July 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM
"The thing is if you take an ordinary kid, shoot him, and then smear him, then that makes every other kid vulernerable."
The thing is, ordinary kids generally don't get shot after administering a beating to somebody, because ordinary kids don't generally administer beatings to somebody. So the claim that Martin was an "ordinary" kid is somewhat tendentious.
As for the "smear", if the effort to railroad Zimmerman hadn't involved trying to turn Martin into some kind of saint, in order to render his attack on Zimmerman implausible, there'd be no need to say one word against the dead.
So, can we stop smearing ordinary kids by making Martin out to be one?
"There is no evidence that Zimmerman *stopped* pursuing Martin or that Martin became the aggressor."
Yeah, actually there is, because of the location of the attack relative to Zimmerman's car, and the fact that, aside from damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound, Martin was uninjured. You have to posit that Zimmerman was following Martin extremely slowly, and then assaulted him in a manner which left no marks. Pulled a gun on him, but didn't get a shot off until *after* being beat up?
And, no, I'm not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Yeah, actually there is, because of the location of the attack relative to Zimmerman's car, and the fact that, aside from damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound, Martin was uninjured. You have to posit that Zimmerman was following Martin extremely slowly, and then assaulted him in a manner which left no marks. Pulled a gun on him, but didn't get a shot off until *after* being beat up?
So many wrong things.
I don't know what about the location relative to Zimmerman's car tells you who attacked who. The only thing it tells me that Zimmerman was not looking for a street sign in an alley. But heck, Ill bite: where would be body have to be for it to indicate Zimmerman attempted to grab Martin to prevent him from fleeing?
You've been told many, many times that Zimmerman could've initiated violence without leaving a mark on either. For example, Zimmerman attempts to grab Martin to prevent him from fleeing before the police arrive. You ignore this, over and over, as if ignoring it would make it go away. We know the fight started. We have no evidence as to who started it.
If Martin had run full speed away from Zimmerman this wouldn't have happened. Maybe he tried to hide. Maybe he was worried about leading the seemingly crazy guy to his home and his family. I don't see why I have to posit that Zimmerman was moving slowly though.
And last, a serving of tasty straw- I don't see any reason to think that Zimmerman pulled his gun before the fight started. You just keep fabricating reasons to not think clearly about this.
And, no, I'm not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Following people slowly in a car and then pursuing them on foot when they attempt to flee is also a criminal behavior pattern. It's perfectly reasonable for Martin to perceive a threat from this behavior.
I know, you've already said that you've advised your teenaged relatives to be polite and meek when followed by strange men into alleys, even if they then reach into their jackets for something or try to physically restrain them. Because they might be Neighborhood Watch, of course.
So, can we stop smearing ordinary kids by making Martin out to be one?
Im mean geez people, just look at him ferchrisake.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM
I'm not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Zimmerman did not act like a member of the neighborhood watch. Had he done so, he wouldn't have acquired a broken nose, Martin would be alive, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
He did not act like a member of neighborhood watch.
He was armed.
He followed Martin on foot.
Not neighborhood watch policy.
The National Sheriff's Association, sponsor of the neighborhood watch program, has been publicly and explicitly critical of Zimmerman's actions.
From their statement, issued shortly after Martin's death:
The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighorhood Watch Program stands for. Says the national organization behind the neighborhood watch program.
Not my words. If you wish to argue the point, take it up with the National Sheriffs Association.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM
You've been told many, many times...
it's time for the rest of us to learn the lesson: Brett's story is immutable. he is not interested in having it modified by anything anyone else has to say.
Posted by: cleek | July 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM
More from Chris Tutko, Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriff's Association:
And:
And:
Not my words, take it up with the National Sheriff's Association.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM
it's time for the rest of us to learn the lesson: Brett's story is immutable.
That's true, but his willingness to say the same wrong things over and over and over provides an opportunity to challenge the BS.
It may be too late for Brett, but perhaps other minds may be saved.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 01:07 PM
I don't disagree with any of the stuff from Neighborhood Watch except where they get the facts wrong:
40 calls over several (>5)years would not be an issue.
He should not have left the car.
On the other hand, he didn't leave the car until Trayvon started to run.
Still should have stayed in the car.
Simple stuff, no complex motivations, no smearing of character.
Zimmerman shouldn't have left the car, he wouldn't have if Trayvon hadn't run.
This stupid misstatement of something I said, not Brett:
If Trayvon knew there was Neighborhood Watch, and reacted by going home on the main street, he would be alive and someone could have complained about Zimmerman.
And, despite russells worry that the bad guy would then know where you live, I want my kid to go straight home in any circumstance like this. Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer? Really?
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
Posted by: Marty | July 22, 2013 at 01:16 PM
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
Not a bad idea, but his failure to do this says nothing about whether or not Zimmerman needed to shoot him to prevent serious harm, nor whether or not Zimmerman did anything stupid or unnecessary leading to whatever confrontation took place.
(Keep in mind Zimmeran was the one on trial for shooting someone, because he shot someone - as opposed to Martin being on trial for failing not to be shot.)
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 22, 2013 at 01:40 PM
Zimmerman shouldn't have left the car, he wouldn't have if Trayvon hadn't run.
I don't know what Zimmerman would've done if Martin had walked into the alley behind the houses instead of running. Given his stated desire that Martin not get away, it's entirely possible that he would've followed on foot anyway.
But it's not known.
And, despite russells worry that the bad guy would then know where you live, I want my kid to go straight home in any circumstance like this. Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer? Really?
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
There's a whole world of things that might have been different, but none of the things Martin did were unreasonable. I think it's important not to assign blame to Martin just because he didn't do the optimal thing at each step. That is not, IMO, equivalent to doing something wrong or unreasonable.
While Zimmerman did some unreasonable things (eg getting out of the car, not announcing that he was part of the Neighborhood Watch at the first opportunity), probably the most unreasonable thing he did was to apparently never consider the possibility that Martin wasn't guilty. Everything in Zimmerman's words and actions indicates that he saw Martin's actions through that lens.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 01:40 PM
"There's a whole world of things that might have been different, but none of the things Martin did were unreasonable."
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
I'll be glad to concede that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. It is often imprudent to do things we are legally entitled to do without being assaulted. But just as to tell a mugging victim they shouldn't have wandered into a dark alley is not to excuse the mugger, to say that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car is not to excuse Martin.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman did anything which would have constituted legal provocation rendering Martin's blows anything but assault and battery. The supposition that he did provoke the blows seems to be based on a combination of setting a disturbingly low threshold for attacking somebody, and accusing Zimmerman of being a racist. For which, let me note, there isn't actually any evidence.
But, yes, it would have been prudent of him to stay in the car.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 02:18 PM
"Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had."
They already had their hands full with Zimmerman not following suggested protocol.
Maybe the 911 operator could have given Martin's and Zimmerman's cell phone numbers to each other and they might have hashed it out between themselves at a distance.
Maybe, maybe.
Maybes are better handled with conversation first, then fists if needed, but deadly weapons should be left to the professionals outside one's property, the latter of which is a concession to the impossibility of guns ever being confiscated in this country, though IMO the big stuff should be taken by this Friday and the manufacturers shut down.
Somewhere, it was reported that Zimmerman told police he had forgotten he was carrying his concealed and loaded weapon that evening as the incident unfolded.
This ties in with a remark MckT made way upthread that he is pretty sure Zimmerman was not expecting gun play (again with the funky terms -- shooting spree, gun play ....
what's next .....bullet foreplay?) that evening either.
Taking MckT's comment first, I reject that conclusion. Why go to the trouble of applying for a concealed weapons permit, let alone owning a weapon, let alone strapping the holstered gun on, if you aren't expecting something?
I'm always amazed at how many concealed weapons carriers testify on the internet and other places that they pack at all times, even breaking the law in some jurisdictions, because they are alert to all possibilities and provocations of assault even if they have not had any prior experience with being assaulted themselves.
They read the papers. Their cousin had a buddy whose brother had a neighbor who got mugged.
Unless Zimmerman was planning on palpating the melons at the grocery store with his plaything, I expect he was alert to and expecting trouble at all times.
Now, to Zimmerman's alleged claim to have forgotten he was carrying his weapon: bullshit.
He's saying he did not know where his gun was. First, that's incompetent. This gun he filled out reams of paperwork to carry, this gun he, I'm convinced, stood in front of the mirror with and practiced his quick draw, probably even looking himself in the eye and asking "You talking to me?" like Travis Bickle, though I expect it might have looked more like Barney Fife spinning and drawing and maybe getting the thing hung up on his belt or some other article of clothing (come to think of it, gun play is an accurate term because he may have watched too many Dirty Harry movies and westerns in which guns are "played" with, this gun he strapped on that day because he fancied himself as and looked forward to being employed in law enforcement, and because he was a player alert to trouble or its facsimile thereof.
The weapon was not a pair of glasses that a person might forget they are momentarily wearing on top of their head -- and if it is then he shouldn't be carrying a weapon.
I wear glasses because I am expecting to see; I'm wearing a watch because I expect to tell time; I'm carrying my wallet because I expect to use its contents; I'm wearing my machete in a harness over my shoulder because I'm expecting to have to hack my way through the high weeds of bullshit every day, among other things; I'm wearing my keys because I expect to lock and unlock; I'm wearing my pants because otherwise people could spot my concealed weapon dangling down my butt crack, etc.
I may forget I am carrying any one of these things, but I didn't have to get a f*cking license to carry any of them, and none of them, with the exception of the machete, are loaded and deadly, though I expect some may conclude that my keys could be used to gouge .... so shoot me.
I'd ask Brett, MckT, bc, Slart and others of us who own weapons for a reason and/or who carry weapons if they have ever forgotten where those weapons are. It sounds to me that all of us are fully alert and aware about where our weapons are at any time, else why own them unless it's the family musket at the bottom of a trunk in the basement, and if we can't remember where the weapons are, especially if they are strapped to our butts, then you're all fired and I'm hiring new bodyguards.
I'd like to know too how Zimmerman managed to untangle his weapon from his clothing while he was flst on his back and it was raining punches outside.
Not that it matters, but I could see the weapon having been drawn just prior to the fight, and in fact being a reason for Trayvon Martin to panic and attack, maybe believing that the only option.
"Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you happy to see me."
"Frankly, m'am, I've lost track of both. Now, lemme see, (patting himself down) the last I saw my weapon was just before I left the house, I put it into my holster and then .. D'oh ... and as for my gun, the last time I carried that was on my honeymoon back in '48, but it always shot blanks anyways. I'm sorry, now, little lady, what was your question?"
Posted by: Countme-In | July 22, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
Yes, predictably you swallowed a roofie since our most recent interchange, and once again forgot that there's no evidence indicating who attacked whom.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman did anything which would have constituted legal provocation rendering Martin's blows anything but assault and battery.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman was assaulted without such a provocation. We have a lack of evidence about who started the fight, period. You keep acting like this is more or less definitive proof that Martin started the fight.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is doubly true when we would not expect some of the events in question to leave evidence. Thus, that there is no evidence that Zimmerman attempted to restrain Martin is exactly what we would expect if it were true and if it were false.
Once more, two scenarios:
1)Zimmerman grabbed Martin, Martin punched Zimmerman
2)Zimmerman followed Martin into the alley, Martin punched Zimmerman
Those are both completely consistent with the evidence. They are both consistent with the actions of the two individuals up to that point. They are both entirely plausible. Neither violates Occam's Razor by introducing new agents or complexities.
You like one of them so much that you repeatedly state it as a fact.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 02:55 PM
I'll be glad to concede that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car.
In comment #83,975...
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 22, 2013 at 02:59 PM
"Yes, predictably you swallowed a roofie since our most recent interchange, and once again forgot that there's no evidence indicating who attacked whom."
Predictably, you're still spinning scenarios with no evidence to support the, in a desperate effort to make the acquitted guy guilty.
Anyway, looks like Zimmerman hasn't learned his lesson, he's still a busybody, sticking his nose where it's not wanted. When WILL he learn to mind his own business?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Zimmerman shouldn't have left the car, he wouldn't have if Trayvon hadn't run.
This is called 'blaming the victim'.
Zimmerman shouldn't have left the car is a complete and sufficient statement. Leave it there.
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
The word you are searching for here, Brett, is 'battery', not assault. Physical contact was made, so it is battery.
From Florida state law:
Whether Martin's action amounted to battery, or a justifiable use of force, depends on what occurred when they encountered each other face to face.
I don't know what happened. Neither do you.
I say this not because it will not prevent you from parroting the same sorry BS another 1,734 times, but neither of us, nor anyone else on the planet save Zimmerman, has any basis for calling Martin's actions lawful and correct, or lawful but stupid, or not lawful.
No one but Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman is neither a reliable nor a disinterested witness.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 03:03 PM
"Neither violates Occam's Razor by introducing new agents or complexities."
No, actually scenario 1 introduces Zimmerman grabbing Martin, in case you somehow overlooked this. Then we could hypothesize that this was in response to Martin spitting in Zimmerman's face. Which was in response to Zimmerman calling him a dirty name. Which was in response to Martin impuning Zimmerman's mom. Yeah, you can keep ADDING things for which there's no evidence, layer on layer. Or you can stick with what there IS evidence for:
Martin striking Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot Martin.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 03:08 PM
I'm going to try this one again:
Is it not possible that Martin could have acted criminally without completely absolving Zimmerman of any moral responsibility for shooting Martin?
Or should Zimmerman have stayed in his car just to avoid the hassle that resulted from his killing Martin, rather than to avoid shooting Martin, even if with legal justification?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 22, 2013 at 03:13 PM
starting the story in the middle, again. what a fucking joke.
i for one have had more than enough of this.
Posted by: cleek | July 22, 2013 at 03:15 PM
"Neither violates Occam's Razor by introducing new agents or complexities."
No, actually scenario 1 introduces Zimmerman grabbing Martin, in case you somehow overlooked this.
That is not a new agent or complexity. It is a new event in the sequence of events.
You would exclude from reasonable consideration all events that do not leave a physical trace. That is bluntly illogical, and you only embrace this deranged logic because it serves your purposes at the moment.
For example, you imagine some words could've been exchanged. Given human beings, it seems likely to me that words were exchanged. We can't know this for certain since there was no recording. Would you have us conclude then that it's vastly more likely that no words were exchanged, since there's no physical evidence that they were?
Or would you reasonably observe that we can't know if words were exchanged, or what they were- that it's entirely possible or even likely, but unknowable?
I ask what you would 'reasonably do' as if that were an option- sometimes I make myself laugh. What I meant to write is "you will mechanistically assume whatever is necessary to make Martin the bad actor in all of this".
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 03:25 PM
"That is not a new agent or complexity. It is a new event in the sequence of events."
No, that's precisely what it is: A violation of Occam's razor.
"You would exclude from reasonable consideration all events that do not leave a physical trace."
Yes, that's right: Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty, I refuse to invent things I have no evidence for in order to rationalize that guilt.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer?
For the record, where Martin ran was down a paved sidewalk, then down another paved walkway between two rows of houses.
His father's house was at the end of that row.
So, off the main street where he was still visible to Zimmerman, then towards his father's house.
The goal of 'losing Zimmerman' is one that is hard to find fault with, given the situation. To me, anyway.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 03:56 PM
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa...
Yes, that's right: Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty, I refuse to invent things I have no evidence for in order to rationalize that guilt.
Yes I know you want to go right to the psychology of it, but you didn't actual respond to the point. If something didn't leave a physical trace, even something that you wouldn't normally expect to leave a physical trace, do you always rule it out when considering scenarios?
You will find that, in other scenarios, this is quite a silly rule to use.
No, that's precisely what it is: A violation of Occam's razor.
You (for whatever sick reason) watch me go into a public restroom. After a few minutes I come back out.
Does Occam's Razor tell you that I didn't use the facilities? Because that's what you're arguing: if you don't have evidence of something- even if you wouldn't expect to have evidence of it- then you say OR tells us it didn't occur.
You are so wrong it's funny. OR doesn't say "assume that only the things that produce evidence are true". OR means we should tentatively rule out that Zimmerman killed Martin over a gambling debt, or that it was an elaborately staged suicide by Martin. Because those involve introducing entirely new factors into the scenario.
"Zimmerman tried to grab Martin" isn't a new factor, it's entirely congruent with Zimmerman's existing motives.
Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty
nb you appear to be the only person here with a dogmatic position on who is guilty, the only person selling one possible scenario as a fact.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 22, 2013 at 04:06 PM
I'd agree that there is a disturbingly low threshold at work here, but it's not the one you're alluding to, Brett. By Florida law (specifically, 784.03 of the Florida Statutes), all Mr. Zimmerman would have needed to do to commit battery upon the person of Mr. Martin would be to grab him or otherwise touch him without his consent. If he did that prior to Mr. Martin throwing a punch, and if Mr. Martin had seen or been told by Mr. Zimmerman that he was armed, Mr. Martin could justifiably stand his ground and (if physically capable) beat Mr. Zimmerman to a pulp, or even to death. I wouldn't call such a hypothetical course of action anything resembling a wise one, but I wouldn't call what Mr. Zimmerman admits to having done wise either. Nor would I consider the Florida Statutes wise for allowing either scenerio to unfold within the protection of the law.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | July 22, 2013 at 04:09 PM
being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty
Guilty of what?
What is anyone here claiming Zimmerman is 'guilty' of?
I've probably been the most critical of Zimmerman, and the strongest thing I've said about him is that he's an @sshole, and that his suspicion of Martin was likely influenced by the fact that Martin was black.
Marty appears to resent my calling him a bad name, so for '@sshole' please substitute 'is prone to rash behavior' if that suits your sensibilities better.
And for evidence of 'rash behavior', you can start with 'left the car'.
My argument with you is your insistence that (a) Martin was a 'thug' and (b) that he therefore had to have been the aggressor in their fight.
He was certainly winning, so Zimmerman's wounds were much worse than Martin's. We - including you - have no idea who started the fight.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Kindly read the previous sentence a couple of hundred times and see if it sinks in.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 04:10 PM
"We - including you - have no idea who started the fight."
We don't have absolute proof, but the comparative injuries most assuredly constitutes evidence.
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now? What's the matter, can't fit it into the narrative?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Just saw the news myself.
Glad Zimmerman helped out. I hope he lives a long, charitable, giving life. He should join a nunnery.
Now, how does this change the narrative about the dead guy?
Do you mean to say that this is the first time in the history of narratives that a fellow caught up in a questionable circumstance has done something decent a short while later?
Who knows (let me guess: you do. In which case, tell us) what Trayvon might have been up to this week?
Or does Martin's bogus criminal history extend into the afterlife?
Posted by: Countme-In | July 22, 2013 at 07:19 PM
Comparing injuries won't tell you anything about who started it. It just tells you who was winning.
I tried to follow the link, but it didn't work.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | July 22, 2013 at 07:28 PM
We don't have absolute proof, but the comparative injuries most assuredly constitutes evidence.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now?
Good job, George.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 07:36 PM
"The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight."
No, that's true, if by "mean", you intend certainly. You are aware that people must routinely reason in the absence of perfect information, aren't you?
So, you've got one guy with a broken nose, two black eyes, contusions, and a gun with one shot fired.
You've got the other guy with scuffed up knuckles, and a fatal gun shot wound.
Oh, and the first guy was expecting the cops to show up at any second.
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
Yeah, I think you can reason in the absence of perfect information. I think you just don't want to.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 22, 2013 at 08:19 PM
Given that the guy who was expecting the cops had been told he didn't have to follow but did, and given that he had in the past exceed the limits of his job (based on professional opinion as given upthread) and given that the guy had resorted to unnecesary or unwise violence in the past as evidenced by his police record, I don't think the fact that he was losing the fight is evidence that he didn't start it.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | July 22, 2013 at 09:31 PM
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
What's the line?
Posted by: bobbyp | July 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM
No, that's true, if by "mean", you intend certainly.
By 'mean' I mean 'prove', 'demonstrate', 'imply', or any other construction that results in 'leads to the conclusion that'.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not, in the absence of other information, lead us to the conclusion that Martin started the fight.
Trust me when I say that lots of folks start fights that they lose, often quite dramatically.
the first guy was expecting the cops to show up at any second.
And yet, he left the car.
My point? Zimmerman was demonstrably capable of rash action, even given the fact that the cops were on the way, and he knew they were on the way.
how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
I wouldn't bet, because there isn't enough information available to draw a conclusion, and I'm not an idiot.
It's my mother's side of the family who love to gamble, I take after my old man's Scot-Irish dirt farmer clan as regards games of chance.
I think you just don't want to.
Without meaning in any way to boast or make any kind of point of it, I feel comfortable saying that in this thread I've amply demonstrated a willingness to entertain as many possible scenarios as will fit into my head.
Which is many more than one.
And which includes the possibility that Martin was freaked out or simply annoyed by Zimmerman and decided to punch out his lights for the hell of it.
Entirely possible. Could have happened that way. We don't know.
You weren't there, I wasn't there. We don't know how the fight started.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Further, had Martin thrown the first punch, that does not mean that his action was legally battery.
It all depends on what happened before the first punch was thrown.
There is one person alive who was there, and I'm not taking his word for it.
You don't know, I don't know. If you want to lay a bet, have at it, I'm not interested.
But that's all it is, a bet. A guess, a wager, a gamble. And there's no pot to win, so I hardly see the point in it.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Leaving games of chance and flights of conjecture aside, if anyone but Brett and I are still reading this weary, sorry-@ss thread, I'll offer a story.
My wife and I have a good friend, a woman who grew up in our town. She's white, her husband is Senagalese, and is very very black.
She has a son who's 12 or 13 now. He's not as dark as his dad, but by any standard prevailing in the US of A, he's a black boy. Wide nose, dark skin, kinky hair.
Black boy.
She is now trying to sort out how to explain to her son that, for the forseeable future, certainly until he is well well well into adulthood and possibly middle age, he will have to go out of his way to make plain to any and everyone near him, whether he knows them or not, that he is not doing anything he shouldn't be doing.
All the time, everywhere he goes.
I hang out sometime at a little kind of Boy's Town place near where I live. It's a group home for kids who come from really, really f***ed up home situations. The DHS sends them to this place where there's no place else for them to go. I haven't been in a while, but when I have time I go down and play drums with the kids. It's fun for me and for them.
Many of these kids are black or some kind of shade of brown, and they all get the same pep talk.
You have no wiggle room - none, zero, no wiggle room. And you won't be getting a lot of second chances, if any.
NO WIGGLE ROOM.
Someone was talking about this same issue on the radio today. The kind of crap she will need to inculcate into her son includes:
never run in public unless it's absolutely crucial to do so
keep you hands out of your pockets if you're in any kind of store
never, ever, ever give anyone any kind of smart answer, about anything, ever
All good advice for any kind, I guess, but the downside for kids who are not black does not include 'or you might get arrested' or 'or you might get shot'.
The kid's 12 or 13, and he's looking at spending the next 20 years of his life MANAGING EVERYBODY ELSE'S ISSUE about black skin.
So that he doesn't end up beat up, or in jail, or shot.
Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about this being like a tax levied on all black people, everywhere, paid to ease the discomfort of white folks when they are required to come into contact with blacks.
I think he's correct.
Everybody wants to say this incident has nothing to do with race. I call bullshit.
I have no particular argument with the acquittal on murder 2 and manslaughter. I think that its sucks that there isn't some other legal structure to hold Zimmerman accountable for the responsibility he owns for Martin's death. But, so be it.
But if you are trying to tell me that race has nothing to do with this incident, you have a very hard sell. Not that you likely give a crap either way, but you have a very hard sell ahead of you.
Zimmerman doesn't have to be a freaking Klansman for the color of Martin's skin to be a factor here. He just has to be an average resident of the US.
Posted by: russell | July 22, 2013 at 10:49 PM
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa...
No, that's true, if by "mean", you intend certainly. You are aware that people must routinely reason in the absence of perfect information, aren't you?
It means, there is no physical evidence as to who started the fight. Not a whit. Not a thimbleful. Not a wisp.
That Martin hit Zimmerman tells us nothing, except that Martin hit Zimmerman. It doesn't make us 99% sure that Martin started the fight, or 90% sure that Martin started the fight, or 75% sure that Martin started the fight.
We start with a virtually infinite number of scenarios. We exclude those that don't fit the physical evidence (eg ones where Martin doesn't hit Zimmerman). We exclude the ones with unnecessary complexity (eg where Zimmerman killed Martin over a love triangle). We're left with a bunch of possibilities.
From those, we get to exercise our judgments aka best guesses, based on motives etc. Scenarios where either starts the fight make it into this final basket. I dont see any reason to have a very strong preference for either other than initial bias.
If the coroner had suddenly found a piece of evidence that Zimmmerman had hit Martin at some point, my picture basically doesn't change- we knew they were in a fight, so duh, people hit each other in fights. It wouldn't make Zimmerman look any more guilty or less innocent IMO.
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
Id be willing to go, I dunno, 3 or 4 to 1 that Zimmerman started it by trying to stop Martin from getting away. Martin *might* have lashed out, but nothing we know about him suggests that this was likely- last we knew, he was fleeing, and there's nothing in his history to indicate intemperate violence. Zimmerman *might* have lashed out- he has more of a history of violent behavior, but less motive (I don't think he was scared before the fight started, since he was pursuing Martin, and if he got scared when face-to-face with Martin it would've been easier for him to flee than attack).
But Zimmerman was very, very eager that Martin not get away. So Zimmerman trying to grapple or tackle Martin is my bet, to hold him until the police arrived.
Also, this is consistent with the one piece of verbal evidence that didn't come from a participant- the phone call.
If not for the phone call, Id put more weight on the possibility that Zimmerman spooked Martin by reaching for his phone.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 23, 2013 at 01:38 AM
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now? What's the matter, can't fit it into the narrative?
Good on him, but not exactly relevant I think, on any level. Unless someone was arguing that Zimmerman is the devil incarnate upthread. And we're hardly ignoring it if it came out today, huh?
Although this is sort of part and parcel of your erroneous thinking- no one here is engaging in the stereotype you want us to play. No one is calling Zimmerman a demon- a fool, maybe. And you've spent at least half of your time here calling out an argument that isn't being made, not seeing that you are the only knee-jerk responder on this thread. The other conservatives are judging this by its merits, but you've got a script playing in your head, and it's so obvious that you keep doing things such as this, lecturing the libruls about stuff they aren't even doing: being against Neighborhood Watch, for example, or thinking that Zimmerman is pure evil.
In all honesty, I don't know why you aren't trolling a less serious , pure partisan liberal site. You could pretty easily find the sort of empty-headed responses that you're apparently eager for (that you are, in fact, debating with even though absent). Why hang out at a relatively nuanced place if all you want to do is throw the conservative script of the day against the liberal script of the day?
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 23, 2013 at 01:49 AM
"It means, there is no physical evidence as to who started the fight. Not a whit. Not a thimbleful. Not a wisp."
All you've done is to take the available evidence, and declare it to not be evidence, on the basis of it not being utterly conclusive. That's all.
But evidence does not have to be conclusive in order to be evidence. It just has to be something which would rationally effect your opinion of what happened. It doesn't have to preclude alternate scenarios, just reduce their likelihood.
In the sense of 'evidence' used by people who are not desperate to deny something, there is evidence. Not as much as we'd like, but it's there, and it does not point to the conclusion most here like.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | July 23, 2013 at 06:51 AM
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
And yes, I'm happy to go back and forth with this until we fill up the Typepad server storage array.
I'll code up a simple macro to spit out the first sentence of my comment at a single keystroke.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
It's consistent with Martin starting the fight, and is also consistent with any number of other things.
And, the scenario of Martin throwing the first punch does not mean he is guilty of battery.
It depends on what happened immediately before the first punch was thrown. And we don't know what that was.
Instead of asserting that I have some secret, or not so secret, agenda that prevents me from seeing what is so glaringly obvious to you, perhaps you would like to address the statements I've made in this comment.
Or not, as you wish. I'll get my macro coded up.
Posted by: russell | July 23, 2013 at 08:58 AM
"You have no wiggle room."
"It depends on what happened immediately before the first punch was thrown. And we don't know what that was."
Yeah, we do. Trayvon Martin wiggled.
In roughly 1964, I was lying on my stomach on the family room floor watching James Brown on Dick Clark's Bandstand and my grandfather, for whom I had and have great affection, and who grew up and lived just north (geographical, but south racially, as was most of the country for that matter) of the Mason-Dixon line south of Cincinnati, tapped be on the leg from behind with his cane and said "Countie, I hope you aren't planning on wiggling like that."
He had on numerous times by then and afterwards until 1968 remarked not very felicitously on the political wiggling of another black man, Martin Luther King, adding on occasion that "somebody ought to shoot that nigger. He's a Communist", which at the time was wiggling two ways, and like clockwork, as if crackers of one mind across the land mysteriously communicated with each other, J. Edgar Hoover removed Secret Service protection to King, which was afforded to all other major political figures.
Just repeating: No wiggle room.
I will say that my grandfather, while not ever agreeing with me (he died in 1970), would listen very patiently to my protestations regarding his views on these matters and, being a former semi-pro baseball player in the 1920s, no doubt of the Solly Hemus variety, but quieter, he would smile just as broadly as me when Cincinnati Reds stars Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, and Leo Cardenas, among others, would help the team win, as we listened to them on the radio together.
Course, Robinson, Pinson, and Cardenas never tried to date his womenfolk, or buy the house next to him, or walk by his house in the rain at night, or apply for a job at his business, examples of wiggling for which there was no room, though I'm sure if he had spotted Barack Obama standing aloof at a party, he would ask the man, politely, to fetch him a glass of chocolate milk, my grandfather not being a drinker.
No wiggle room.
And the room is getting smaller once again.
Posted by: Countme-In | July 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Here's the lesson I draw from this: if you live in Florida and are white you can shoot non-white males no matter how you have contgributed to the incident, provided there are no witnesses. All you have to do is claim that at the last minute you tried to withdraw from the fight. Let the other party get a lick or two in, and then BAM!
White men have credibility. Black men are Wille Horton.
I guess it must be useful to some people to believe that this isn't true. I don't really understand the psychology of denial. I don't know what a white person gains by pretending that black people, men and boys especially, aren't subjected to a default assumption of probably being up to no good.
Acknowleding this dynamic in our society doesn't make all of us whites into racists, after all. There's nothing to get defensive about. It's a real problem. It's an immediate problem for black men and boys but in the end its a real problem for all of us. It's healthier to face up to an deal wikth things than to try to pretend them away.
Posted by: Laura Koerbeer | July 23, 2013 at 11:02 AM
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa...
All you've done is to take the available evidence, and declare it to not be evidence, on the basis of it not being utterly conclusive. That's all.
That is not what I said, that is not what I meant, and that is not the case.
There is no evidence as to who started the fight. Out of all of the scenarios that were possible, we exclude scenarios where Martin never punched Zimmerman. I don't see why you think that affects who started the fight to any degree that we'd care about. Why you think that eg Zimmerman grabbing Martin is so unlikely as to be discountable.
I mean, if you said this moved you from 50/50 to 51/49, I could understand it. But you claim that it makes who started the fight virtually a known thing- you've referred to it over and over again as a fact.
You really have no idea who started the fight; the vast majority of what's sitting on the scales is your finger.
But at least now you've found a safe position to defend. Done with mistaken invocations of Occam's Razor, done with painting the victim as a villain, done with explaining eg how the location of Martin's body show that Martin probably attacked Zimmerman, etc.
Now, you can just repeat, over and over again, that because Martin punched Zimmerman at some point in the fight, we can't effectively doubt who started it. As russell said, we can just start copying and pasting now. And you can continue to pretend that you arent the one with the racially-tinged interpretation, that you are struggling against libruls who want to ban all guns and get rid of Neighborhood Watches, and that Trayvon Martin got what he deserved.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | July 23, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Here's the lesson I draw from this: this case can and will be used as sole support for some opinion or other, to the exclusion of pretty much every other such occurrence.
Apropos of not much, here's a list of SYG cases in Florida. There's a wide variety of such cases, involving people of all colors on either side of the gun.
The assumption that this case somehow establishes a new and different policy in the state of Florida is an ongoing mystery to me. Where does this idea come from?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM
Assuming this link works, here is an example of an African American successfully invoking SYG, in Florida, where the victim was white: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_89
I mention this because it isn't as black and white as some would have it. Thanks, Slarti, for the useful link.
Also, FWIW, it isn't too hard to find examples of Rev. Sharpton, among others, arguing justifiable homicide when roles are reversed. There is somewhat of a double standard at play here.
The link above also answers many of the rhetorical flourishes, including the President's, to the effect that if roles had been reversed in the Martin/Zimmerman encounter, the outcome would have been different. Maybe, maybe not seems to be the more fact-based answer.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | July 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM
It comes from the fact that the people saying it were not previously aware of the law and its glorious legacy of inconsistent, convoluted, and outright twisted decisions arising from it. For them, this is the only data point, and never you mind that there are plenty of others, some far worse than this case.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | July 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Neat link, Slart. Not for nothing, but if you filter by race of the victim as "black" versus "white" you get 7/25 convictions/justifed and 30/39 convictions/justified, respectively. You have a much better chance of getting away with shooting a black person, it seems so far.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | July 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM