Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[MiloMinderbinder]

It's important for all of us if Zimmerman's supporters would at least acknowledge (as did his attorneys) there is a racial aspect of this case and accept the fact (as do Zimmerman's attorneys) that some people are genuinely upset with the verdict though they're willing to accept it.

If people were willing to do that than some good will come of this, after all.

I'm not a Zimmerman supporter by any means, but I do strongly support the acquittal of any defendant when there is reasonable doubt in the case.

When it comes to race, it's likely that race contributed to the profile of Martin in Zimmerman's mind. The issue I (and likely many other non-black folks) have is that the anti-Zimmerman folks, many of whom are black, keep saying that race was THE reason Martin was profiled. That ignores what Zimmerman says on the NEN call about suspicious behavior, and I think we could all agree that if the person Zimmerman saw was a middle aged black guy walking his dog while holding an umbrella, he wouldn't have called the police. As such, it was Martin's behavior that caught Zimmerman's eye first. He probably also profiled him by his clothes as someone young, and of course he might have guessed he was black. But, the point here is that it's not like he was calling the police every time a black person was in his neighborhood. That means he was not simply profiling him as black.

That being said, I think I can appreciate how black Americans feel about being profiled, and like Obama said about the stuff about being followed in department stores, having a woman hold her purse tighter on an elevator, etc. I get that, and it must be insulting.

But, let's look at profiling in terms of gender instead of race. If it's late at night in a parking garage and woman by herself sees me, a strange man, she's likely going to make more of a concerted effort to get to the safety of her car than if I was another woman. Not only is that accepted as commonsense for women, but they are also taught that - to be wary of strange men late at night when they are vulnerable even though only a very low percentage of men even consider attacking a woman in that situation. It's gender based profiling, but we all get it and accept it.

Part of the acceptance of this gender based profiling is that we men understand the threat women feel due to the fact that some men indeed do attack women in those situations. Additionally, reasonable men know that it's better to act non-threatening in that situation in order to help alleviate suspicion. Thus, even though it might feel a bit insulting to be profiled as a potential attacker, I accept it as part of the reality of the social complexity of my community, and I do my part by doing what I can to appear non-threatening.

As a non-black person, I understand to some extent how it feels to be profiled, but one important difference between being profiled by gender vs. being profiled by race is that I accept it for it what it is because I realize, like it or not, that I AM a threat in SOME situations. And, perhaps even more importantly, I accept that because I have been taught to accept it. I haven't been told over and over that whenever a woman quickens her step in a vulnerable situation that she is sexist and insulting me. And, I haven't been taught that the solution to this problem is to argue with women in an effort to convince them that I'm not a threat and that they have no business profiling ME even though other men really are threats. Consequently, if we're going to talk about how to deal with race and racism, instead of stereotyping all instances where non-black people feel threatened in the presence of a black person as racism, there needs to be an honest distinction made between situations where the perception of a threat is legitimate and where it is not.

That's what I see missing here in the midst of the Zimmerman case - the refusal to acknowledge that even though Martin was likely doing nothing wrong, profiling him as suspicious was legitimate given the context of the situation, just as a woman has a legitimate concern that I might be suspicious if she sees me in the right situation.

 

[Dan O.]

Stalked has a legal definition you have not met.

What is my evidence of that ? The state did not charge him with stalking.

The state chose it's battles. They didn't charge George with driving down the wrong side of the road either.

When told he did not need to do that, he responded "ok" and stopped. No evidence exists that he continued any "pursuit"

I said George continued to follow trayvon after he said "**** he's running". Are you claiming that George didn't then get out of his truck and run in the direction that Trayvon had run?


My list only covered the motions that were clearly depicted by George himself. Beyond that, there is absolutely clear evidence visible to anyone that will open their eyes that George did continue hunting for Trayvon. The debris field, the position of Trayvon's body and the location of the bullet casing all show that George was well south of the tee which is contradictory to his claim of just walking back to his truck.




Apparently meeting at a fixed location was not something the police needed him to do, did they ?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

Again, no evidence of any wrong-doing.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan O.]

Others have done a pretty good job of pointing it out, I'll just add, that you are arbitrarily separating one on going event into three to try and strangle your facts into a point.

What's this arbitrary crap? Life is one event. We choose to divide it into day's and moments. I showed that there were definately decission points between the three segments. The point where george choose to abandon his stated intent to go shopping and instead turn back into the neighborhood to follow Trayvon and the bonehead's decission to get out of his truck and follow trayvon on foot. This shows a pattern that George is actually following Trayvon with intent and not simply going in the same direction.

 

[Dan O.]

Okay I really had to laugh at this. Witnesses we can't trust because memory is terribly fallible, at least when they say things we don't agree with, when they back up our bias they are 100% correct. But because GZ was 100% consistent in his 6 recalling's of the story over several weeks, he must be lying.

Of course the fact that the forensic evidence also agrees with the witnesses....

Please fill in the details of what happened after George got off the phone with the NEN operator. How do you account for the location where each piece of physical evidence was found. This ought to be easy for you since you say the evidence agrees with the witnesses.

 

[Dan O.]

This is incorrect. TM had four minutes because that clock starts when he ran and it goes until the confrontation begins. For much of that time, GZ was still on the phone with the NEN operator. He only had about 2 minutes between the end of his call, and the confrontation, time he claimed he spent looking for a street sign and house number so he could tell the police, then started to walk back towards his truck.

Here I fully agree with you. Now, when you realize where that street sign is I expect that you will be doing a bit of backtracking.

 

[Dan O.]

I have to ask, if it were you (Open question to all, not directed at any individual.) on trial, which of these two would you prefer the jury consider. The facts and the evidence that helps to prove you innocent, or the emotional reactions and pleas of a group that wishes you found guilty?
You don't get to use the option of, 'I wouldn't ever be in such a position' ether, you're already there. The facts and evidence prove innocence, the group doesn't care and wants your head on a pike. Pick one.

That's obvious. I'd take the facts and evidence in front of the judge in a SYG immunity hearing over the emotional scene of a jury trial (assuming of course that the facts and evidence really did support my innocence).

 

[bynmdsue]

How do posters view the relative expectations of answerable conduct in an incident involving two people: a 16 year old boy and a 28 year old man who appropriates the role of authority figure?



Sorry for not explaining better. You have a 28 year old man in the role of
NW person. He's armed. These 2 factors raise the standard of what would be commonsense behavior, I would think. I'm not talking about the letter of the law. In daily interactions we have a duty to go beyond merely "not being in violation of the law".

Who's this 16 year old boy you keep bringing up?

And no we don't. "Not being in violation of the law" is the best the state can ask of us. They can't mandate you be a good faithful honest person.

 

[newyorkguy]

...

But if that type of complex subtle discussion of race has taken place in the media even once, I haven't seen it. Instead all I've seen are outrageous accusations of racism hurled at anyone and everyone who doesn't scream "he's a murderer" at the top of their lungs. "The police didn't prosecute because they were racists". "GZ is a racist". The jury were a bunch of white racists". And on and on.

...

If ALL that was found in the reporting was outrageous accusations of racism than I ask what reporting? I haven't seen even ONE article that "reported" that anyone who didn't scream "he's a murderer" at the top of their lungs was a racist. If they exist, in a reputable news source, I'd like to see them linked.

I also praised the attorneys for being willing to acknowledge there IS a racial component to this. I know it would be helpful for our nation if Zimmerman's supporters would also acknowledge the racial aspect of this case.

Yeah, cause it's our fault that people think this case relies entirely on the race of the people involved....

....

I don't find this a very logical argument. That Zimmerman supporters should deny the racial aspect because people some people are overreacting to it.


Btw from what I have found, Jesse Jackson is suggesting the United Nations should investigate the racial climate in the United States not the Trayvon Martin case.

And it’s time to call on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for an in-depth investigation of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligations under international human rights laws and treaties.

Link

I don't see a need for that either but I'd be willing to listen to why Jackson thinks it's necessary.

And guess what? The UN has already suggested it:

U.N. officials, including the council’s top official, weighed in on the [Trayvon Martin] case when it first began to unfold. High Commissioner Navi Pillay called for an investigation last year. Other committees associated with the council pointed to the case in terms of race as well and criticized Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws.

Link

 

[newyorkguy]

...

But, let's look at profiling in terms of gender instead of race. If it's late at night in a parking garage and woman by herself sees me, a strange man, she's likely going to make more of a concerted effort to get to the safety of her car than if I was another woman.
...

That's what I see missing here in the midst of the Zimmerman case - the refusal to acknowledge that even though Martin was likely doing nothing wrong,profiling him as suspicious was legitimate given the context of the situation, just as a woman has a legitimate concern that I might be suspicious if she sees me in the right situation.

Except it wasn't late at night in a parking garage and Zimmerman isn't female.

What context? There ARE black people who live in that development, are there not?

It was 7:00 PM and Zimmerman drove past a teenaged black kid walking while wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of iced tea. But as you suggest, for some people just Martin's presence alone was enough to ignite their suspicion. What black people call, "WWB."

Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

I have to ask, if it were you (Open question to all, not directed at any individual.) on trial, which of these two would you prefer the jury consider. The facts and the evidence that helps to prove you innocent, or the emotional reactions and pleas of a group that wishes you found guilty?
You don't get to use the option of, 'I wouldn't ever be in such a position' ether, you're already there. The facts and evidence prove innocence, the group doesn't care and wants your head on a pike. Pick one.

Of course I'd pick the one that actually follows the law. A wise man once said that it would be better for us to let 100 guilty men free, than for one innocent person to be imprisoned. Or something like that.

 

[triforcharity]

Sorry for not explaining better. You have a 28 year old man in the role of NW person.

Sort of, but no. A 28 year old man. At the time, he was in absolutely no role of the NW.

He's armed.

Ok. I can relate. I am a CWP holder in the state of Florida, and carry a firearm the vast majority of the time I leave the house.

These 2 factors raise the standard of what would be commonsense behavior, I would think.

Ok. Maybe. We'll agree for discussion's sake.

I'm not talking about the letter of the law.

Ok, so you're thinking morally and ethically? Ok, we can go with that.

In daily interactions we have a duty to go beyond merely "not being in violation of the law".

Sure, if as I am guessing you mean morally and ethically.

As I've said earlier (I don't remember where, or if you saw it or not) but as a person with a CWP, who carries a firearm, I feel that ethically, you have a duty to society and to your family not to put yourself in any situation where you MAY have to use your gun for self defense. I'm not going to walk through a bad area of town for one. I'm not going to chase someone down who I think is committing a crime. Now, at the same time, I'm not going to run away and hide if someone is robbing the convenience store I'm shopping in.

As I said, I'm not going to get out of my car. I'll let the police do their job. However, the simple fact is, TM escalated the situation when he escalated the force involved to deadly force. It really doesn't matter much who started the fight as far as the law is concerned at that point.

It was a bad idea to get out of that truck that night. However, it's a moral issue.

 

[Dan O.]

However, the simple fact is, TM escalated the situation when he escalated the force involved to deadly force.

And yet you already admitted to the opposite in another thread.

 

[phillyboy]

Who's this 16 year old boy you keep bringing up?

Trayvon Martin.

[/QUOTE]And no we don't. "Not being in violation of the law" is the best the state can ask of us....[/QUOTE]

True statement, but only as far as it goes. What about what we can ask of each other in a hopefully civilized society?

 

[Kestrel]

The other racial aspect is the easy acceptance of the claim that TM intended to kill GZ. GZ's injuries were not severe. By the next day, the only visible indications were the bandages covering two small cuts on his head. GZ's injuries are consistent with a scuffle, not a life or death struggle. Society simply assumes that TM intended to kill GZ, because that is what "their kind" do.

 

[WildCat]

It was just a comment about the nature of human memory. Something that seems lost on the general public, but a skeptic should understand.

Human memory doesn't work like a TIVO machine. We don't just replay the tape from some past event and see it just as it happens. Our memory is associative and reconstructive. We associate facts with an event and reconstruct what we believe happened, our mind fills in the details. The interesting part is that we then have to store that memory again. And when we do, we often add details that we have learned about later as if we witnessed them when the event happened.

The public sees eyewitness testimony as the best type of evidence. Those who have studied how well people recall events know better.

Except when Zimmerman retells the story with minor inconsistencies it's not due to the nature of human memory, but because he's a liar covering up his murder, right?

 

[Cylinder]

It was 7:00 PM and Zimmerman drove past a teenaged black kid walking while wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of iced tea. But as you suggest, for some people just Martin's presence alone was enough to ignite their suspicion. What black people call, "WWB."

The problem remains that Zimmerman, in real time, did not associate the hoodie or the fruit drink as suspicious behavior. He did articulate that Martin was wandering aimlessly in the rain, looking in or at houses and was acting like he was on drugs - his words, not mine. Martin actually was slightly impaired (according to his previous rate of use this could either manifest itself or not, we don't know) and there were at least two other residents who asserted in statements that very night, without benefit of Zimmerman's statement, that it was unusual and suspicious to them that people were out that night given the rainy/cool conditions.

There certainly can be a cultural component, and Martin fit the profile - including age/race of the string of burglaries that had been plaguing the community. There's also no indication that Zimmerman called in every black teenager that walked through the complex so the posit that Martin's presence alone ignite has no rational basis.

 

[lane99]

One Sided Story

...The one valid point...is GZ willingness to repeatedly talk to the police multiple times without an attorney, give them his DNA, his cell phone, take the voice stress test can be best explained by an absence of intent to decieve.

It's not a valid point. And is closer to being the worst explanation for the circumstances you've described.

Do you also believe the countless guilty parties who have "cooperated" with investigators (for example, rapists and murderers who were caught after voluntarily providing DNA samples) were effectively confessing to their crimes, rather than, with their backs against the wall, making a strategic choice as to what would be the best means to deceive investigators and misdirect suspicion away from themselves?

Zimmergun had the luxury of framing the narrative with a self-serving story with little fear of contradiction. Since the person most likely to have been able to contradict it, he had already taken care of.

Under those circumstances, it would not be a well calculated move to appear uncooperative. As it would raise red flags and probably invite an even greater level of suspicion, skepticism, and scrutiny.
.
.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The state chose it's battles. They didn't charge George with driving down the wrong side of the road either.

And you don't think the battle of proving GZ was stalking TM was one they thought they could win ?

It would take too many resources away from collecting evidence for the murder2 charge ?

You set out what you believe to be clear proof in a few minutes in an Internet forum. What do you believe stopped the SA from doing the same thing ?

I'll re-iterate; because GZ was not stalking, and they didn't have a case.

I said George continued to follow trayvon after he said "**** he's running". Are you claiming that George didn't then get out of his truck and run in the direction that Trayvon had run?

1. I have no evidence that he ran. Did he say he ran ? Did anyone say GZ ran ?
2. I said there is no evidence he continued once told to stop.

My list only covered the motions that were clearly depicted by George himself. Beyond that, there is absolutely clear evidence visible to anyone that will open their eyes that George did continue hunting for Trayvon. The debris field, the position of Trayvon's body and the location of the bullet casing all show that George was well south of the tee which is contradictory to his claim of just walking back to his truck.

GZ claimed he was confronted at the Tee, and the fight moved south. That is not contradictory to the claim of just walking back to his truck.

Use of the word hunting is absolutely clear evidence of your bias.

 

[Mister Earl]

And then run away? Or would he still have been justified in mounting him pinning him to the ground and repeatedly punching him? If he just wanted to escape a perfect time would be when Zimmerman fell down.

That's the crazy part. Zimmerman made bad decisions and claims of self defense is OK. But somehow self defense applying to Martin suddenly is impossible because he made a bad decision? Why the double standard?

Assuming my hypothesis is accurate, assuming that Zimmerman decided to try to physically detain Martin, assuming that Martin fought back against an aggressor with undeclared intentions, would his claim to self defense suddenly become invalid because he didn't try to run away the first chance he got? If so, why is Zimmerman's claim of self defense not invalidated for not staying in his car, or walking away when confronted by Martin?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say I know one way or another, regarding who initiated what. There's only two witnesses there, and one is dead, and the other has every reason in the world to lie about it if it would incriminate him. I guess I'm just trying to point out that there's people who still treat Zimmerman as if he were some poor innocent soul who doesn't deserve the consequences of his bad decisions, that treat Zimmerman's word regarding the events as verified fact, and that I think they are wrong.

Remember, Zimmerman didn't exactly bother to explain his intent to Martin at all, and answered obliquely when asked by Martin why he was following him. Why wouldn't Martin expect the worst? As far as he saw things, some crazy guy actually got out of his car to follow him on foot. For your average teenager, under what scenarios you can imagine this NOT end in a bad way?

 

[ABC10]

Except it wasn't late at night in a parking garage and Zimmerman isn't female.

What context? There ARE black people who live in that development, are there not?

It was 7:00 PM and Zimmerman drove past a teenaged black kid walking while wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of iced tea. But as you suggest, for some people just Martin's presence alone was enough to ignite their suspicion. What black people call, "WWB."

Thanks.

And it was brown against black. It was Watermelon juice and not ice tea. And it is Walking while Brown or Black. In any event, not white. The Community had 50% minority residents of black and brown, 45% white and 5% assorted others. 61 black people were shot in Chicago over the time of the Zimmmerman trial. Does anyone know their names including the 4 children killed? The problem is blacks killing blacks, It's their neighbor down the street that they are afraid of not some white guy jumping out of a bush. The BGI needs to be addressing this problem.