Trayvon Martin

[bosk1]

The only thing that is clear to me, is that both parties made some very bad decisions, all of which led to this tragedy.  There were likely so many instances where it could have been diffused and sent on another less lethal path....with just a different action one or both parts.  Both parties made active choices that led to a death of one person, and the ruin of another life.  Tragic.

This.  Beyond that, it boggles the mind to see people spouting off about what we "know" and which facts are supposedly "indisputable." 

[Ryzee]

Very well said Eric.  Basically I just don't think it's unreasonable to expect Zimmerman to have to plead his case in a court of law.  I'd want Martin to do the same, if he wasn't, you know, dead.

[eric42434224]

Regardless of size, race, what they were wearing, who threw the first punch or who started what, what it comes down to from what I understand is these guys were fighting in the street.  Regardless of who was kicking who's ass, it was a fight.  Is it true that under Florida law you can pull out a gun and shoot someone in a street fight like it's the wild west, say you were acting in self defense and that's that?  That's pretty crazy/scary to me.

A person is under no obligation to get their ass kicked.  Period.  In many states, a person has the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop an unlawful use of force against them.  I have no problem with this. 

Fair enough.  I do.  If someone is invading your home or property, or even just jumps you on the street for no reason then I'm right there with you.  But since this is a situation that one guy instigated by choosing to follow another guy for no reason other than he "looked suspicious," whatever that means, and the other guy escalated in reacting by throwing blows, then I don't see this as being much different from the street brawls I've seen break out in front of bars a million times.  The idea that someone is within their rights to pull out a gun in a situation like that and blow the other guy away just seems kind of barbaric to me.  If Zimmerman were a cop and/or Martin had so much as a screwdriver to use as a deadly weapon then my whole opinion would change.

You cant escalate any situation to physical violence and not expect the chance that it can then get escalated to deadly force.  That is the kicker here.  The escalation to PHYSICAL violence.  There is a big leap there.  Once it escalates to physical harm, it opens a whole big fucking bag of bad shit to happen.  And that includes self defense with a gun.

If some one is arguing with you in a bar, that is merely a verbal altercation.  If it is MUTUAL combat, then there is no case for pulling a gun and defending yourself.  But if one guy then decides to escalate from verbal to go after you and physically harm you, you have a right to defend yourself.  That is a threshold that some here are missing.  The threshold that is crossed when an incident is raised to physical violence by ONE party against another...not mutually. 

You cant escatale a verbal incident to a physical one (not mutually), and not be responsible, at least in part, for the outcome.

[Ryzee]

Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?

[bosk1]

Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?

Hard to say.  Even aside from how much we just don't know about what happened, the fact that the media has turned this into a public spectacle and practically declared Zimmerman's guilt doesn't go very far in guaranteeing him a fair trial.  If he's guilty, so be it.  But it sucks having to go into trial with jurors who may be of the mindframe of, "We already know he's guilty.  Now we just have to sit through all these lawyer games to 'hear the facts' before we can move on to finding a way to convict him."

[eric42434224]

Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?

IF...and a big if, as we really dont know the facts.....IF Martin escalated a verbal altercation to physical violence, with Zimmerman not wanting a physical altercation, especially if Martin had other obvious options, then yes I would say self-defense would be a factor.

[Ryzee]

Sounds like Zimmerman's got a pretty good case for his defense in a court of law then, yeah?

Hard to say.  Even aside from how much we just don't know about what happened, the fact that the media has turned this into a public spectacle and practically declared Zimmerman's guilt doesn't go very far in guaranteeing him a fair trial.

Also a very good point Bosk.  That's another reason why more than anything else this whole thing is just a giant ball of fuck.

Well enough P/R discussion for me boys, I suck at this anyway.  I'm gonna go try and be funny in GD and GMD.  Peace!

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Not that it matters, but I find myself wondering:  If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun on him, how likely is it that he'd have had the confidence to get out and try to follow Martin?  It seems likely he figured he had the protection of a gun, should something happen.  Maybe he STILL would've gone after Martin had he not had a gun, but it just seems a little less likely you'd involve yourself like that, without the piece of mind of knowing you have a gun.

Also, he didn't know if Martin had a gun or not, so it seems even MORE foolhardy to have gone after him.  If he thought Martin had a gun, it seems fairly likely that SOMEBODY would pull a gun.  If he thought Martin did NOT have a gun, then he'd have felt a certain confidence in following, because his gun would protect him.  Either way, seems foolish.

None of this means anything and isn't intended to draw any conclusions, just kinda thinking out loud.

You cant escatale a verbal incident to a physical one (not mutually), and not be responsible, at least in part, for the outcome.

And neither a verbal or physical incident would've happened, had Zimmerman stayed where he was at instead of trying to follow Martin, to keep him from "getting away".  Getting away implies wrongdoing, something Zimmerman seemingly had no reason to infer.

[eric42434224]

And neither a verbal or physical incident would've happened, had Zimmerman stayed where he was at instead of trying to follow Martin, to keep him from "getting away".  Getting away implies wrongdoing, something Zimmerman seemingly had no reason to infer.

This is what makes me think that people arent thinking logically here.  Not a dig at you personally.  But you dont even mention the other parties shared responsibility.  You cant lump all responsibility on Zimmerman due to the initial mistake.  Without Martins actions, it doesnt end this way.  It is the actions of BOTH.  Not just the inital action.

It would be like this scenario:
A guy behind you on the highway is driving aggressively, weaving in and out of traffic agressively and dangerously, trying to get past you.  Honking horn, tailgaiting VERY close, yelling, and flipping you off.  You decide to hit the brakes to prove a point so he will back off.  Unfortunately he is looking in the next lane and hits you, causing you to lose control and cause an accident where you are hurt, and others are hurt.
It is like you are saying the other driver is totally responsible, because if he wasnt driving aggressively in the first place, none of this would have happened.  That is pretty poor reasoning.  You made a poor choice in the situation that had the very real consequense of either escalating the other drivers aggressiveness and/or cause an accident.  You should have continued to drive in a proper manner.  You have shared responsibility.

Assuming "facts" discussed here, it appears that Zimmerman made the "first" bad decision, or desicions.  However, it does not make him totally responsible for Martin's bad decisions.  If martin chose to escalate this to another physical level, when he may clearly have had other choices, puts clearly a share of responsibility squarely on his shoulders.

Considering what some of the "facts" are, it is difficult for me to see how someone with no bias or emotion can come to any conclusion other thnt both parties having some shared responsibility here.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

It IS the actions of both, assuming Martin actually started shit, which we don't know for sure.  If somehow we manage to find out for certain that Martin started something, I'd certainly agree that he carried some of the fault for what happened.  But we don't know that for sure and likely never will.

We do know that Zimmerman followed Martin, seemingly unnecessarily.  Sans that, nobody ends up dead.

[eric42434224]

It IS the actions of both, assuming Martin actually started shit, which we don't know for sure.  If somehow we manage to find out for certain that Martin started something, I'd certainly agree that he carried some of the fault for what happened.  But we don't know that for sure and likely never will.

We do know that Zimmerman followed Martin, seemingly unnecessarily.  Sans that, nobody ends up dead.

That is a slippery slope.  Did Martin do something that would justify the suspicion of an average Neighborhood Watch Patrol person?  We dont know for sure and likely never will.  Maybe he looked in a parked car?  I have done that before, just to see the interior of a car I am interested in.  Im sure it looked suspicious to someone watching.  Can we blame him for acting in a suspicious manner as the first mistake....therefore being the cause of the inevitable tragic end?  Of course not.  Not saying this happened, just making a point. 

My point is this: we dont know all the facts, and until you do, you just cant go back to the person who made the first mistake and place all blame there.

[Adami]

So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.



I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"

[eric42434224]

So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.

I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"

Seriously?  If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.

Your analogy, and your interpretation of how "fault" should be determined, is so far off it is difficult to respond.

[Adami]

So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.

I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"

Seriously?  If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.

Well I added the ice cream part on my own. Figured it would make things nicer.

You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.

[eric42434224]

So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.

I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"

Fuck it, I will reply.  In your scenario, you instigated physical violence seemingly without any justification.  You will likely be at least partially responsible for the outcome.  Did the other person physically defend himself, or did he "attack" you after what was your only punch?  Did you move away from him after your first punch, showing no more threat?  Then maybe he is  not justified in self-defense.  See how your anaolgy is so far off, and lacks so much info, that it is silly to use it in this discussion.

And to then talk about blame in a way that is seemingly done to incite a reaction, is counter-productive.  Partial or split blame does not cancel out blame.  You cant be so black and white about a scenario like this as to think that one person is at fault.  It is very grey, and both parties can easily have shared responsibility and blame.

[eric42434224]

So if I walk up to a person and punch him in the back of the head, and in return he attacks me, and then I shoot him to death.

I'm not actually the person to blame? He is partially to blame? Really? At that point, what is the purpose of assigning blame? You're just missing the entire point of the situation and breaking it down to "Well..........it's both of their faults really, so it's not really anyone's fault, ice cream anyone?"

Seriously?  If that is what you got from this discussion so far, then Im not sure I can reply.

Well I added the ice cream part on my own. Figured it would make things nicer.

You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.

How do you come to the conclusion that Zimmerman provoked a fight?  Provoke a verbal confrontation, OK.  But I have yet to see a valid reason to escalate it to a physical attack.  Escalating it to the physical is the threshold is where consequenses drastically change, and Im not sure many see that distinction.  That is where Martins responsibily comes into play.

Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin:  "Good Mother fucker.  Im going to walk home in peace now Bitch or Im going to call the Pigs.  Walk away Bitch."

Done.  Cops show up.  No one dies.  But unfortunately for both, it goes like this:

Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin:  "Well now you do."  Physical altercation ensues.

PHYSICAL.  Big difference.

Not saying it went down like that for sure, but the escalation to the physical gets shared responsibility.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Z told 911 "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.  It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.", then later "looking at all the houses".

I suppose it's possible to discern whether an average person with a hoodie on walking up the street at night in the rain may or may not be on drugs, but not to me, it wouldn't be.  Yeah, if it was raining, maybe it's odd he's out in the rain, but reports indicate he was walking home.  I suppose we can't be sure on that.  I know that if I'm walking through a neighborhood, I'm looking at houses, just out of curiosity.  I would hope that nobody would find me suspicious for doing so, even if I was walking home in the rain.  Z's 911 transcript indicates that Martin notices Z watching him and he comes closer to see what's up.  Then he runs.

So okay, maybe Martin shouldn't have approached him, but Z clearly indicates to 911 that Martin was running away.  At that point, I cannot come up with any good reason to follow, other than the fact that he had it in his head that he wasn't going to let someone get away who by his own account was not actually doing anything wrong.  I suppose to Z, it was suspicious, but that's clearly a subjective point that each of us could see differently.

[Adami]

Following a person at night. It's provoking.

It doesn't cause a fight, but it provokes one. Like I said, essentially anyone at this point is allowed to follow anyone else, seem dangerous, then kill the person if the person tries to fight.


Also, sorry if this has been posted, but at what range did Zimmerman shoot Martin? Was it point blank? How far away was he when he was shot?

[El Barto]

You've created a very slippery slope. Essentially, under your guys' interpretation of what happened, any white guy can follow around (with a gun) any black guy for any reason. Provoke a fight, kill the kid and then get off. You've created a perfectly legal way to murder people.

Don't know what Florida's laws state now that they went and mucked them all up, but traditionally it doesn't work if you provoke the use of force yourself.  Hell,  even Chief Wiggum knew that.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.  (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
   (b)  The use of force against another is not justified:                       
      (1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;                                 
      (2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
      (3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
      (4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
         (A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and
         (B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

[Adami]

Seeing a huge white guy following you around in the rain, is in my opinion, a provocation. Maybe not a justification, but a provocation none the less.



Unless you want to tell me that Martin just noticed Zimmerman standing there, and randomly felt the urge to charge and attack him.

[eric42434224]

Seeing a huge white guy following you around in the rain, is in my opinion, a provocation. Maybe not a justification, but a provocation none the less.



Unless you want to tell me that Martin just noticed Zimmerman standing there, and randomly felt the urge to charge and attack him.

Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."
Martin:  "Well now you do."

Assuming the above quote is true, do you think the physical escalation was even provoked, much less justified?
Seems plausible that Z did not want a fucking thing to do with any sort of physical altercation, and that M was fucking Hella pissed off about being profiled and followed.
Even if that wasnt the scenario. it just isnt justified to take it to a physical level, when it was clear that there were many obvious non physical options.

[Adami]

I'm not talking about justified. And yes, following someone around in the rain at night is provoking. Any one of you will feel threatened if a big guy was following you around at night in the rain.

[eric42434224]

I'm not talking about justified. And yes, following someone around in the rain at night is provoking. Any one of you will feel threatened if a big guy was following you around at night in the rain.

How threatened are you if you confront the guy following you like this:

You: "You got a problem?"
Him: "No."
You:  "Well now you do."

And then instigate a physical attack.

Sounds like "pissed off" instead of "threatened"


And just to be clear on two points.  Im not saying it is a fact it happened like the quotes above.  And more importantly, if it isnt JUSTIFIED, then you shouldnt do it, and you share respoonsibility.  You can be "provoked" all day about a multitude of shit.  You dont get to kick someone in the throat if they call your Mom a whore....you were provoked, but not justified.  BIG difference.

[Adami]

Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.


So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.

[eric42434224]

Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.


So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.

But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

You: "You got a problem?"
Him: "No."
You:  "Well now you do."

Assuming he said that.  I won't debate that issue, since as far as I know (maybe I'm wrong), we don't know that for certain.  What we do know is that Zimmerman made an assumption that Martin was up to no good, Martin approached (maybe to see why Zimmerman was watching him, don't know), then ran.  Zimmerman followed.  When the kid ran, that should have been it.  Leave it to the police.  That does not appear to have been enough for Zimmerman.

Zimerman would say whatever he had to to exhonerate himself.  You would, I would, anyone would.  Zimmerman would also be able to say that Martin said whatever he wanted the police to hear.  It isn't like Martin's going to contradict him, what with being dead and all.

[Adami]

Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.


So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.

But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.

Not what I'm arguing. He provoked violence. The fact that the violence wasn't justified is the reason he gets away with it.


How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.

[eric42434224]

Well Zimmerman was lying, or else he wouldn't have been following him calling the police and calling him racist terms.


So no, I won't trust the huge guy following me in the middle of the night when he says it's all good. Because if it were all good, the dude wouldn't be following me at night in the rain.

But it doesnt justify physical violence, especially when there are many, and obvious, non violent alternatives.

Not what I'm arguing. He provoked violence. The fact that the violence wasn't justified is the reason he gets away with it.


How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.

1- Your analogies are so far off it is getting silly.

2- Correct, it is not his fault completely, unless it was his intent to kill someone from the start.  Hence my comment on your analogy.

EDIT:  Not sure I understand why you dont place any blame on someone who escalates a verbal altercation to physical violence.  You dont get to punch someone in the throat if they call your Mom a Cum Dumpster.  It isimply isnt justified, and by doing so, you must share responsibility in the outcome.  I dont understand why that gets a pass by you.

I am merely saying I think it is likely, given the available info, that blame is shared by both parties.  Both.
People dont die from insults and arguments.  They end up dead when it tips into the physical.  The person that does that tipping can be partially responsible.  If Martin wasnt clearly threatened with physical harm, it was a very poor and unfortunate choice to escalate it to the physical. 

I think I have made my views very clear, and will bow out for now. 

[Adami]

Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.

[eric42434224]

Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.

What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.
Determining levels of involvement and responsibility can teach valuable lessons, and determine the level of punishment of involved parties.

Its like it has to be either black, white, or nothing with you.

[Adami]

Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.

What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.

I guess I am just looking at it in a legal way or something. If a judge said "Well it's both of your faults"....then what is he to do? You know? Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

[eric42434224]

Which leads me to my original point. All conflicts share fault. If we leave it at "it's both of their faults", then nothing happens.

What do you mean "nothing happens"?
That makes no sense.

I guess I am just looking at it in a legal way or something. If a judge said "Well it's both of your faults"....then what is he to do? You know? Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

As an example, perhaps it will determine the specific type of punishment is given to each party, or what type of civil judgement is awarded.  Just because fault is split, it doesnt mean punishment cant be split.

EDIT:
Man I got sucked into this discussion.  I gots to go.  Have a good one y'all.  I have to get to my night job on the Neighborhood Watch Patrol.  LOL.


....too soon?

[El Barto]

The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.

I'm not entirely sure that's how it happened, but I think it's a reasonable enough way of looking at it that it should fall to a jury to decide.  It should come down to reason, and that's a determination better left to a jury than us.

[AcidLameLTE]

Neighborhood Watch trailer scrapped after shooting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17548011

[j]

You cant escalate any situation to physical violence and not expect the chance that it can then get escalated to deadly force.  That is the kicker here.  The escalation to PHYSICAL violence.  There is a big leap there.

Exactly the point I was making earlier:

Some sources report that he is the one who escalated the situation to violence.  If that were the case, would you really deny that he bears any responsibility whatsoever for what transpired afterward, even though Zimmerman had been following him?  Whatever went down that night, I wouldn't presume to say that there was "shared and equal responsibility," just that it's almost certain that each party has a degree of responsibility for the situation's tragic outcome.

Doesn't mean the kid is as responsible as Zimmerman for what happened, but it definitely indicates that he's not completely free of blame.

How about this. Some people aren't super rational. Some people grew up in a neighborhood where you have to physically defend yourself often. All I have to do, is go into any of these neighborhoods, start yelling at and insulting people. Then of course kill them if they try to attack me. Legal murder. It's an issue. The person went out looking for trouble, caused a problem by looking for it, killed a man and now suddenly it's not really his fault completely.

Nothing I've seen about this kid's background--other than his race, if you please--suggests that he grew up in a place like this.  Not sure if you were implying that or if this was a completely hypothetical scenario, but he's from the suburbs.  Now his upbringing or family life may very well have contributed to the way he reacted in this situation, but the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if someone just "isn't super rational."  That doesn't exempt them from responsibility for their own actions.

If Martin had actually beaten the shit out of Zimmerman, who later died of a brain hemorrhage or something, wouldn't Martin be at least partly culpable for what transpired?  Of course, and so would Zimmerman.  Each probably to varying degrees.  The outcomes are different, but what led up to them remains the same.

-J