tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post6998069127321182041..comments2024-01-20T02:06:45.388-08:00Comments on The Political Omnivore: On The Zimmerman VerdictUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-77513564438655820252013-07-17T07:04:49.842-07:002013-07-17T07:04:49.842-07:00I will leave the question as to whether or not #1 ...<i>I will leave the question as to whether or not #1 and #2 are legally the same to the lawyers</i><br /><br />Hooooookay. You seemed sure about the law when you wrote this.<br /><br /><i>Although I'll cop to generally having lower expectations of a 17 year old than an adult</i><br /><br />This is absurd. A 17 year old is old enough to enlist, and old enough to be tried as an adult, if Martin had succeeded in killing or severely injuring Zimmerman and had been arrested. A 17 year old is damn well old enough to know that responding to a perceived slight or lack of respect with lethal force is wrong and illegal.<br /><br />But I also think a 16 year old that had spent 10 years in the public school system shouldn't be functionally illiterate. I guess I'm just racist that way.<br /><br /><i>I think you should ask yourself what *you* would do if some angry stranger who had been following you around looked like he was suddenly about to clear an object from jacket pocket during the encounter.</i><br /><br />I would do my damnedest to be somewhere else, especially if I was a fit 17 year old who had successfully eluded the old fat guy once before. An unarmed person who closes the distance, and engages in fisticuffs with, a person he believes has a gun, is a very special kind of stupid. I don't think Martin was that dumb (in that way) and I don't think that was his motivation.pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-25602067214057197512013-07-17T05:38:08.108-07:002013-07-17T05:38:08.108-07:00PDB: I will leave the question as to whether or no...PDB: I will leave the question as to whether or not #1 and #2 are legally the same to the lawyers (especially the various conservative legal pundits who thought manslaughter was possible and murder 2 was ridiculous).<br /><br />Whether they are morally the same, I'll leave to the individual.<br /><br />Before my final point, though, I want to note something. You keep coming back to a particular theme in your responses here:<br /><br />"Isn't that a little racist?"<br />"Or are the expectations for black youth lower?"<br />"but I don't see how that's a bad thing compared to Martin the wannabee thug"<br /><br />Although I'll cop to generally having lower expectations of a 17 year old than an adult I don't think Martin comported himself well here. As I understand it he clearly came back to the situation when he should have just gone on home. I think he was looking for a fight. I think it probable he hit GZ first.<br /><br />I doubt he truly would have literally killed GZ (the same way I do not thing GZ was looking to murder TM)--but I'm not sure and I don't think that matter (I do think GZ probably did fear for his life during the beat down).<br /><br />I'm no fan of Martin's and I don't think he's "better" than a wannabe cop--he just doesn't happen to be the one on trial here.<br /><br />However ...<br /><br />According to GZ's defense (as I understand it) he was reaching for his phone in his jacket pocket when Martin hit him. While I'm not trying to exonerate Martin--who as I've said I think was spoiling for a fight as well--I think you should ask yourself what *you* would do if some angry stranger who had been following you around looked like he was suddenly about to clear an object from jacket pocket during the encounter.<br /><br />Keep in mind I've read your blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-8034721882501198492013-07-17T05:12:15.817-07:002013-07-17T05:12:15.817-07:00zach26276: That's a good point--and well state...zach26276: That's a good point--and well stated--GZ was out of his truck at the time. I got that wrong and I do think that it makes him *more* credible than if he'd had the conversation with 9/11 dispatch earlier on in the timeline.<br /><br />I looked for a timeline and found these two links:<br />http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive<br /><br />And this one with time-stamps:<br />http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/29/04041/8193/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-Case-Timelines-and-Routes<br /><br />That said, the question is: does it change things *enough* for me? The answer is: "Not enough for me to reverse my decision--but it does move my bar closer to the juries' decision than it was previously."<br /><br />A couple of things to better explain:<br />1. You are misunderstanding how the burden of proof and presumed-innocence works. There are a vast number of cases where the defendant's stance is something like: "I was sitting in my car, yo, and this guy ran by and threw a purse in my lap. I didn't take it."<br /><br />There's usually no *evidence* to disprove that story (the defendant is found with the purse and it's 'his word against the 'other guy's'--who mysteriously can't be found)--and the story is physically *possible*--but no one is required to believe it. Not even the judge or jury--and even without evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Exactly where GZ went in the 3 min 49 sec after the call is left to only his version of events.<br /><br />2. GZ *did* decide to exit the vehicle after being seen by Martin (according to these timelines). Whether or not he was looking for a confrontation or a street sign we can't know for sure. The map puts him as following Martin quite some distance (down the cut-through from Twin Trees to Retreat View Circle): If he was purely looking for a street sign--or on his way back, he covered a fairly large distance doing so.<br /><br />Would I have decided things the way the jury did had I been on it? Maybe. I'm not going to second guess them--they were exposed to far more of this than I have been (or want to be). <br /><br />But do I believe that GZ is the saint his defense makes himself out to be? No--I don't quite believe that either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-61938523521344207162013-07-16T18:29:20.637-07:002013-07-16T18:29:20.637-07:00I think that's a fair and reasonable range of ...I think that's a fair and reasonable range of possible events, but, and this is where we will probably part, functionally and legally, #1 and #2 are completely the same.<br /><br />Unless Zimmerman was making a direct threat, was displaying the ability and willingness to act upon it, and was preventing his escape, then any act of violence by Martin was uncalled for. Even if Zimmerman had gotten up in Martin's face and shoved him (soft hands is at the very bottom of the continuum of force), that would not legally sustain a justification to bash his head against the pavement, which is as much lethal force as heaving a brick at his head. Mean or racist feelings don't matter to the law (although that's a curious thing for a Hispanic Obama voter who tutored black kids in his spare time), nor do insults or verbal threats without also displaying the ability to act on them. <br /><br />Maybe Zimmerman was a wannabee cop (but I don't see how that's a bad thing compared to Martin the wannabee thug), maybe he hated black people, and maybe he had delusions of seeing his name in lights after capturing a bad guy. Doesn't matter. All that matters is who initiated the threat of lethal force.pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-45312734443679361402013-07-16T17:24:07.263-07:002013-07-16T17:24:07.263-07:00You presented three different categories of "...You presented three different categories of "Zimmerman" in your statement, Marco. The issue is, you can't prove any one of them over the other. So, how are you going to convict someone of being one of those theoretical people and put them in prison for it? Thankfully in America, we do not have to prove our innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove our guilt and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Zimmerman profiled in your first example isn't accurate.<br /><br />I also wanted to point out an inaccuracy in your original blog. He didn't get out of his vehicle after the police dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow the person. He was already out of his vehicle. That is a very significant difference from what you described.<br /><br />Zimmerman's statement said that after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow the person, which is a standard disclosure statement from a dispatcher on all calls, he stopped following him and started heading back to his vehicle. On his way back to the vehicle he was going to verify which street he was on so he could tell the dispatcher. Zimmerman claims that he was confronted and then assaulted by Treyvon after he was ON HIS WAY BACK (not yelling, just highlighting). <br /><br />Could Zimmerman be lying? Sure, but if it is there is no evidence that proves it was a lie. So an honorable person would have to assume it isn't a lie since we aren't supposed to presume people guilty in this country.<br /><br />There is a video on youtube from a guy named Stefan Molyneux that paints a pretty good picture of what Zimmerman claims happened that night. I don't know if this information is accurate but I have read the same story in more than one place, but take it for what it is worth. <br /><br />I started the video at 10:40 but feel free to start from the beginning if you want to. The first 10 minutes is back story about Treyvon and Zimmerman. It isn't important for the point I am making. I don't think you need to watch the entire video but from 10:40 to about the 23 minute mark it is pretty interesting. <br /><br />http://youtu.be/bF-Ax5E8EJc?t=10m40szach26276https://www.blogger.com/profile/10134357789208016550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-26050463555293482432013-07-16T14:25:20.453-07:002013-07-16T14:25:20.453-07:00In trying to understand Martin's reaction we h...In trying to understand Martin's reaction we have to first understand exactly what happened, right? I see three basic categories:<br /><br />1. GZ approached TM in a totally laid back and cool fashion and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood and TM attacked him.<br /><br />This is the likely case for a grown-up with a history of making good life choices. A man with no anger issues (certainly never hitting a cop or a woman). A person who is NOT riled up or angry. This is NOT a man who wants to be a hero.<br /><br />I will call this person, for no apparent reason, "Your George Zimmerman"<br /><br />2. In the second category GZ approaches in a frightening and hostile manner (after having 'stalked' or even *stalked* TM for some time). In this scenario he is angry--he is leaving his vehicle because staying in the vehicle doesn't give him any closure to the confrontation he wants. It doesn't let him be the hero. He *knows* the cops are on their way but it's *not enough*--he has to stop the burglar IN THE ACT.<br /><br />In this case he approaches TM as a threat and TM feels threatened. Perhaps GZ postures? Perhaps he simply closes distance rapidly? In this scenario we have someone who is clearly angry--and we know from past history potentially violent--approaching someone else with intent to accost--in this scenario? Physically.<br /><br />In this case, I think our GZ is, in fact, looking for trouble.<br /><br />I will call this person, for no apparent reason, "My George Zimmerman."<br /><br />3. In the third category we have a George Zimmerman who exits the vehicle with murder on his mind. He looks for a scenario where his legal-eagle training will permit him a clean kill. TM gets the jump on him but it's not enough.<br /><br />This is an imaginary person made up by people on the Internet who have heard very little about the case.<br /><br />I will call this--again, with nomenclature chosen ENTIRELY at random--"That guy whose article I linked to's George Zimmerman."<br /><br />This is the spectrum I see--the closer the reality--as I perceive it--falls towards 3 the more culpable the person is. When he hits 2, though, I think that GZ bears more of the blame for his actions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-29446181402042499172013-07-16T14:04:25.769-07:002013-07-16T14:04:25.769-07:00I'm just trying to understand how Zimmerman pr...I'm just trying to understand how Zimmerman provoked Martin into beating his head against the pavement, and how Zimmerman could have expected that to happen -- the definition of "looking for trouble".<br /><br />Following someone should not provoke a violent response. Verbally challenging someone (though I'm unclear if there were words exchanged) should not provoke a violent response. A person should reply to "Who are you and where are you going?" with either "I'm Trayvon and I live with my girlfriend's dad over there," or "Go fuck yourself,", not a beatdown. Or are the expectations for black youth lower?pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-16619982082158321342013-07-16T13:57:48.426-07:002013-07-16T13:57:48.426-07:00Looking for trouble is looking for trouble--and ha...Looking for trouble is looking for trouble--and has been for quite some time. Do we have a specific incident in mind here? Like, one where we could both objectively agree on exactly what happened?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-89663544140284851402013-07-16T13:52:50.143-07:002013-07-16T13:52:50.143-07:00Asking someone who they are and what they are doin...Asking someone who they are and what they are doing, while being in your own neighborhood, is looking for trouble now?pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-26285427389626362472013-07-16T13:37:19.638-07:002013-07-16T13:37:19.638-07:00You quoted me on this comment so I have some idea ...You quoted me on this comment so I have some idea of what you're talking about.<br /><br />I think that going out of your way looking for trouble imbues the person doing the looking with more responsibility for the outcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-32370827990588727642013-07-16T13:10:13.306-07:002013-07-16T13:10:13.306-07:00On the other hand, it is still legal to pursue som...<i> On the other hand, it is still legal to pursue someone, confront them, and, if you are armed, shoot them if you are losing the fight you provoked. I think that needs to change.</i><br /><br />This is absurd. A verbal challenge does not warrant a response of force, even a verbal threat of violence doesn't meet that requirement (in NC, anyway, I would presume FL law is similar)(unless other conditions are met, etc). <br /><br />A person does not have to be armed to present a lethal threat. Plenty of people have been punched or strangled to death. How many more injuries should GZ have sustained before doing something? <br /><br />Martin had every opportunity to go home safe and sound, he left the initial confrontation. He chose to come back and fight instead. pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-10610570302209055612013-07-16T11:48:17.554-07:002013-07-16T11:48:17.554-07:00So it's not reasonable to expect a young black...So it's not reasonable to expect a young black guy to respond rationally to a verbal challenge, and GZ should have expected TM to flip out and pound his head into the sidewalk? Isn't that a little racist?pdbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667258613628853195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-47116913512887769862013-07-16T07:40:08.408-07:002013-07-16T07:40:08.408-07:00Thanks for the edit: Key West was only marginally ...Thanks for the edit: Key West was only marginally successful. They wanted Murder-2 but even that was a stretch, it seems. Murder-1 was what portions of the Internet wanted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049100705786633064.post-42182765830335484522013-07-16T07:37:31.821-07:002013-07-16T07:37:31.821-07:00Manslaughter always seemed a better charge to me. ...Manslaughter always seemed a better charge to me. I mean, Zimmerman’s a piece of work and his dumb-fuckery killed a kid. He deserves to do time. But Murder-1 never made any sense.<br /><br />Oh, and Key West *seceded*, about which I’m not sure if they *succeeded*.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08419140766302700410noreply@blogger.com