Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[McHell]

Thanks, I didn't find the original link and I didn't remember the specific charges.

So to answer your questions - both police and people like (and including) George Zimmerman lie.

Hey look, we found some common ground.

Although I would argue there are better reasons to suspect that Zimmerman was most likely at fault than there are to believe that an essentially random law enforcement officer would lie about what happened.

Not having enacted the labor in reading this entire thread, I have no idea whether you would agree with that or not.

 

[Mumbles]

I'll only note this: we still have no answer to a very simple question.

What was Trayvon Martin supposed to do?

And I don't mean the Martin in Zimmerman's story who runs away, and then runs back, punches him so that he falls both forwards and backwards, and then caves Zimmerman's head in, but it recovered overnight...

No.

You are walking down the street, some person is staring at you. You walk by, and they begin following you. You run away, and this person gets out of his car and chases you. That's all documented. What do you do?

Go home, despite doing nothing illegal, and lead this weirdo directly to your house?

Stand and defend yourself, at which point the weirdo shoots you?

Yell for help - at which point he'll shoot you and claim that he was yelling?

 

[Cylinder]

What was Trayvon Martin supposed to do?

Not assault Zimmerman.

 

[WildCat]

I'll only note this: we still have no answer to a very simple question.

What was Trayvon Martin supposed to do?

Go home and call 911 to report Zimmerman following him, assuming he really was concerned. And not necessarily in that order.

What not to do: assault Zimmerman.

 

[Mumbles]

Not assault Zimmerman.

sigh

Thank you, Cylinder, you have precisely illustrated the problem. We know that Martin actively tried to avoid a confrontation with Zimmerman out of fear, and that Zimmerman actively tried to confront Martin out of anger. And your thinking is "Martin must have assaulted Zimmerman."

That's absurd, but in a way, it perfectly answers the question. There is absolutely nothing that Martin could have done that would make him innocent in the eyes of many. Once Zimmerman decided that Martin was "real suspicious", he had no options.

 

[Cylinder]

Thank you, Cylinder, you have precisely illustrated the problem. We know that Martin actively tried to avoid a confrontation with Zimmerman out of fear, and that Zimmerman actively tried to confront Martin out of anger. And your thinking is "Martin must have assaulted Zimmerman."

We don't know that.

My thinking doesn't insist that Martin attacked Zimmerman - the objective and race-neutral evidence does.

Martin wasn't entitled to an exclusion zone in a common area and certainly had no legitimate claim to enforce that expectation with a violent assault. Martin wasn't compelled to do anything. The law, however, requires him to refrain from punching Zimmerman in the nose, mounting him and banging his head against the concrete sidewalk.

 

[Mumbles]

We don't know that.

Yes, we do. Everything I said in your quote was captured in Zimmerman's own police recording. It's not in dispute.

 

[Bob001]

We don't know that.

My thinking doesn't insist that Martin attacked Zimmerman - the objective and race-neutral evidence does.

Martin wasn't entitled to an exclusion zone in a common area and certainly had no legitimate claim to enforce that expectation with a violent assault. Martin wasn't compelled to do anything. The law, however, requires him to refrain from punching Zimmerman in the nose, mounting him and banging his head against the concrete sidewalk.

We have only Zimmerman's account of what preceded that. Suppose Zimmerman had grabbed Martin and tried to keep him from getting away? Is Martin entitled to defend himself? And I continue to doubt this "banging his head against the sidewalk" business. If you've ever done martial arts or high school wrestling you know it's not that easy to move someone's head if he's forcefully resisting. And if Martin had both hands on Zimmerman's head, Zimmerman had two hands free to punch, grab, gouge, crush (what part of the opponent's anatomy is conveniently at hand if he's sitting on your chest?), cover up, etc., etc., etc. Straddling someone is an inherently unstable position, especially against a larger, heavier, stronger opponent, and Zimmerman had martial arts training (however inept his instructor pal claimed he was). Why is it out of the question that Zimmerman accosted Martin, and Martin defended himself against an attacking stranger?

 

[Kestrel]

The cultural assumption is that all young black men are violent thugs and that white guys are law abiding citizens that would never provoke a fight. Even when the history of the individuals involved indicates the opposite.

George Zimmerman has repeatedly proved he is an immature hothead but we still pretend that Martin must have started the fight.

 

[Cylinder]

He aint breed nuff 4 me...

-Trayvon Martin

 

[Cylinder]

We have only Zimmerman's account of what preceded that. Suppose Zimmerman had grabbed Martin and tried to keep him from getting away? Is Martin entitled to defend himself?

Yes. Assuming Martin had clean hands, he would have been entitled to use whatever proportional amount of force was necessary to stop the attack.

 

[Mumbles]

...And I'm done with that conversation.

As I said, there was nothing Trayvon Martin could have done. He's black, and therefor he's guilty.

ETA: so let's get back down to the basic question: What was Martin supposed to do, after being stalked by Zimmerman? And no nonsense like "Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman." Let's discuss what actually happened.

 

[Giz]

ETA: so let's get back down to the basic question: What was Martin supposed to do, after being stalked by Zimmerman? And no nonsense like "Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman." Let's discuss what actually happened.

Ok.

Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman.

 

[Mumbles]

So, again, no answer. Put Giz down as another person who thinks that a black guy walking by him is "assault".

ETA: Anyone else wanna try? What was Martin supposed to do?

 

[Giz]

Put Giz down as another person who thinks that a black guy walking by him is "assault".

That's a lie.

I go where the evidence goes. Based on the initial reports, I started off thinking that Martin was an innocent victim and the police were incompetent bigots. I changed my mind as more evidence came out. Some people never changed their mind. .. and it is them who are the ones who should check their predjudices.

 

[johnny karate]

Not assault Zimmerman.

What not to do: assault Zimmerman.

Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman.

Please present evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hey look, we found some common ground.

Although I would argue there are better reasons to suspect that Zimmerman was most likely at fault than there are to believe that an essentially random law enforcement officer would lie about what happened.

Not having enacted the labor in reading this entire thread, I have no idea whether you would agree with that or not.

It was a bit more than simply deciding that GZ was truthful and the officer was not.

Here is my post in the second zimmerman thread with a link to the OS story with an interview by FDLE of someone who corroborates GZ version of events that evening. (the 2005 battery incident)

Start about 2 pages back if you really want to read all the nonsense in context, and see how it makes GZ a violent felon.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So, again, no answer. Put Giz down as another person who thinks that a black guy walking by him is "assault".

ETA: Anyone else wanna try? What was Martin supposed to do?

Continue home and go inside.

Stop in a well lit area and call the NEN.

 

[Unabogie]

Continue home and go inside.

Stop in a well lit area and call the NEN.

So his fatal mistake was thinking that running behind buildings into the darkness was a good way to escape a creepy man in a truck who was following him, not expecting him to get out and chase him into the darkness for no reason.

That was a big blunder, him not knowing that the man had a penchant for violence such as assault, rape, and now killing.

 

[johnny karate]

Here is my post in the second zimmerman thread with a link to the OS story with an interview by FDLE of someone who corroborates GZ version of events that evening. (the 2005 battery incident)

Based on the standards you establish in the Michael Brown thread for the reliability of eyewitnesses, please explain why you think this witness is credible.

Start about 2 pages back if you really want to read all the nonsense in context, and see how it makes GZ a violent felon.

Well, we know Zimmerman is violent, but did someone call him a felon? Can you provide a quote?