There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the George Zimmerman trial. When I saw who the jurors were (six middle-aged women) I knew that Zimmerman would get off. The jury would view him as a nice boy who was doing what he thought was right to protect middle-aged women just like them. They would think that he made an honest mistake that ended in a terrible accident.
I agree that the jury had no choice but to find Zimmerman not guilty under Florida law. But as two-thirds of the jury firmly believed, I also think that George Zimmerman was guilty of needlessly killing Trayvon Martin. The problem is, Florida doesn't have a law that they could charge for the crime that Zimmerman committed. In many other states it would have been an open-and-shut case of negligent homicide: Zimmerman instigated the entire confrontation, ignored the 911 operator's cautions instead of waiting for the police, and killed a kid whose only crime was walking while wearing a hoodie.
Florida law allows armed vigilantes to roam the streets, pumped with the false courage that comes from the barrel of a gun. Florida law explicitly allows people to stalk, confront and threaten innocent pedestrians with firearms, and then shoot them when things go south and they suddenly fear for their own lives. In Florida gun rights trump all others, even the right to life.
The trial was all about George Zimmerman's fear and apprehension. But as the president pointed out today, someone else may have felt fear: Zimmerman's victim, Trayvon Martin. We know that George Zimmerman feared for his life when he described to the police how Martin struck his head on the sidewalk.
What we couldn't hear was Trayvon's description of what he felt when that "creepy-ass cracker" was stalking him on that dark rainy day. We don't know what Trayvon saw when Zimmerman get out of his car and approached the boy. All we have is the killer's word that he didn't draw his weapon until Martin attacked him.
Based on other cases in Florida where people used guns to threaten others (20 years for firing a warning shot), it's very possible that had Trayvon survived to tell us of the fear he felt from Zimmerman's stalking, Zimmerman would have gone to jail for a very long time. But because Zimmerman killed Trayvon, preventing the boy from testifying, a killer got off. Florida law is completely screwed up.
What truly astonishes me is how so many people blithely talk about the hoodie and how it represents something terrible and ominous, something that only hoodlums and gangsters wear.
In the past year I have walked through my neighborhood on a cold or rainy day wearing a raincoat or a sweatshirt with the hood up dozens of times. Many of the people I pass -- including middle-aged ladies -- are also wearing hoods. The entire point of the hood is to keep your head warm and dry. But the number of times in my entire life I have driven through my neighborhood squinting at pedestrians through steamed-up windows while packing a pistol is exactly zero. I am therefore in much greater danger from idiots like George Zimmerman than I am from kids like Trayvon Martin. I therefore have utterly no sympathy for Zimmerman.
I can sympathize with the middle-aged jury ladies worried about their houses getting broken into: a dozen years ago while we were at the movies some punks kicked in our front door and stole a 15-year-old stereo system (they also rifled the drawers of our nightstand, obviously looking for guns and money). It was a couple of weeks before Christmas. They couldn't have gotten more than a couple hundred bucks for the stereo. But it cost us more than $2,000 to replace the front door and frame.
The burglars who broke into my house obviously had a car, because they got away with two very bulky speakers, a CD player and a receiver. They were apparently cruising the neighborhood looking for dark houses to rob.
So a guy like George Zimmerman slowly cruising down the street checking out the neighborhood looks a lot more suspicious to me than a kid walking in the rain wearing a hood and carrying iced tea and a bag of Skittles.
17 comments:
Florida law explicitly allows people to stalk, confront and threaten innocent pedestrians with firearms
Every time I think you can't possibly be a bigger fucking asshole idiot - you go and prove me wrong.
Seriously, I don't see how you're going to top this.
Zimmerman instigated the entire confrontation
Not supported by the evidence.
ignored the 911 operator's cautions instead of waiting for the police
Not supported by the evidence.
and killed a kid whose only crime was walking while wearing a hoodie.
Not supported by the evidence.
When the entire premise of you bile is not supported by the evidence, you maybe ought to think about your bias'.
Did Zimmerman assume that Martin was a criminal? Did he get out of the car and follow him on foot? Did he fail to think about how his actions would look to Martin?
The answer to all of these questions is yes and those are facts.
The answer to all of these questions is yes and those are facts.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. You know this how?
In any case, these facts have no bearing at all on the case. Not one bit and none are illegal. You are still defending your stupidity?
You're still turning a blind eye to the problem of law enforcement and race in this country. My hope is that something positive will come out of this horrible event.
Something else to think about...Zimmerman is not really free by any stretch of the imagination and likely regrets what he did. For the rest of his life, he has a target on his back and, tragically, is going to be followed around for no reason...just as he did to Martin. I'd say that those who think he "got off" have no idea the prison he has created for himself.
You're still turning a blind eye to the problem of law enforcement and race in this country.
Which has what to do with the Martin case?
Zimmerman wasn't law enforcement.
Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him throwing punches.
Do you have any fucking clue what you are talking about or do you just like to howl at the moon?
It has to do with it because Trayvon was an innocent black kid who was the victim of prejudice.
It has to do with it because Trayvon was an innocent black kid who was the victim of prejudice.
Is that what you call knocking someone to the ground and beating on them?
So if some black kid does that to your own son or daughter, you'll tell them not to be so fucking racist, right?
Of course no white kid on top of a Hispanic man punching the crap out of would've been shot. Right?
What evidence do you have that Martin was just innocently walking down the sidewalk and not acting suspiciously like he was casing houses, as Zimmerman told the police in his initial call?
The fact is, the last 4 minutes before the assault happened, Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was based on what he was telling the dispatcher, and was heading back to his truck. Then he was assaulted and was getting his ass beat for about 45 seconds before drawing his gun. You paid no attention to the trial and have paid no attention to what the jurors heard, which was heavily weighted to the prosecution's side by the judge's rulings on what could be entered into evidence. And the prosecution may well be in danger of being disbarred because of their attempts to withhold evidence from the defense. Disbarment should be the least of their worries, but I'm sure it will be. Despite all of that, the state failed utterly to make their case. Their own witnesses made the defense's case for them.
You're apparently quite sure both that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman is guilty simply because Trayvon was black. If that isn't a textbook example of racism, what is?
It has to do with it because Trayvon was an innocent black kid who was the victim of prejudice.
I have, repeatedly, asked you to state specifically by what metric you have determined that Zimmerman used Martin's race as a determining factor in any manner to profile or prejudice his actions.
You refuse to answer.
That's because it's simply not there.
If you payed attention to the evidence rather than the narrative you would know several things.
One, at the point Zimmerman made his call to the police he had already decided that Martin was suspicious for various reasons. (This is obvious, as if at this point in time Z was not suspicious of M then he would not have called the police.)
Two, during that call (after he had already decided that Martin was suspicious) the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what was the race of the suspicious person. Zimmerman said "uhhm", paused and then replied "he looks black". (That would be a pretty ambiguous answer from someone who knew the suspicious person's race and used that race, even sub-consciously, as a determining factor.)
Three, shortly after, Martin moved to a location where Zimmerman was able to see him better and gave the dispatcher an updated response based upon better information when he said, definitively that the suspicious person was indeed black.
These three items are readily discernible to anyone who actually listens to the non-emergency call. These three items show that Zimmerman did not have unambiguous knowledge of Martin's race at the time that he decided that Martin's actions were suspicious enough to call the police. This shows that there was no racial profiling, prejudice or any other racial element in Zimmerman's decision to be suspicious of Martin.
So the whole narrative of this having any fucking thing to do with race is preposterous.
you'll tell them not to be so fucking racist, right?
I'd tell them not to be a dumb ass and stalk people.
In looking at these comments, I think I have figured out why you guys are so pro-Zim. It's the rage fantasy played out in reality. Zim is Michael Douglas in Falling Down and he just has to be in the right, right?!?
GD, you are holding up this case as some sort of metric about racial profiling, hoping that because there was none here that must mean that it never happens anywhere and we should just forget about it. Any talk of it is race baiting, right?
I've said repeatedly that I don't think Zim was a racist. He was prejudiced. He saw a young male in a hoodie, later identified him as black, walking around a gated community. If Martin was wearing a suit and carrying flowers, Zimmerman would not have thought him suspicious. It was the combination of all those things that led Zim to think Martin was a criminal.
What's really quite sick is now people are trying to make Martin out to be a criminal and/or into drugs to make him look bad. He wasn't doing anything but walking.
Did Zimmerman assume that Martin was a criminal?
Well, it turns out he was. Unless you don't consider assault and attempted murder to be criminal.
Besides, your question is irrelevant. The actions that Z described of M to the dispatcher are suspicious and most definitely qualify as appropriate for further investigation.
Did he get out of the car and follow him on foot?
So? As shown, from the court testimony, he wasn't told he couldn't do that. Also, most neighborhood watch groups actually patrol on foot so getting out of the car is a complete non-sequitur. Finally, how is a person supposed to keep an eye on a suspicious person if one does not move in order to keep that eye on him?
Nikto uses the word 'stalked', you use the word 'follow'. Both those words would imply something that just isn't in the evidence. Z was not closely following M. He did not follow M through multiple turns and twists throughout his route. Z moved from the street, in one direction, to the interior courtyard which would be appropriate in order to maintain visual contact with a suspicious person. Details matter. There is no evidence that Z closely approached M, or that Z even attempted to closely approach M. Without being able to say that Z tried to get close to M then the words "stalk" and "follow" ring as hyperbole.
Did he fail to think about how his actions would look to Martin?
You mean did he fail to think that Marin would be a vicious thug? Yeah.
What exactly do his actions look like? If Z did not attempt to closely approach M then whatever his actions would look like, to a reasonable person, still fail to meet any legal criteria for Martin to initiate force. Whatever Martin thought, the fact remains that he initiated an assault upon another person without legal cause.
That's why I keep asking you that question. If, if, there existed any theory that Zimmerman's actions could be portrayed in such a manner that a reasonable person would be justified to use force against Zimmerman then there would be a point to your statement. In other words, if Zimmerman's actions appeared to Martin (to a reasonable person standard) sufficiently threatening to give Martin a legally justified reason to use force upon Zimmerman then your point would be valid. Absent you being able to present any theory, that fits within the known facts, of that then it doesn't matter what it looked like to Martin - because it wouldn't meet a standard that a reasonable person would agree with and that would justify Martin's use of force upon Zimmerman. In short, if Z's actions actually could be construed to be a threat to M then you could present a legally justified reason for use of force. Since you can't then Z's actions can not be described as threatening.
The answer to all of these questions is yes and those are facts.
The answer to all of those questions are irrelevant.
I've said repeatedly that I don't think Zim was a racist. He was prejudiced. He saw a young male in a hoodie, later identified him as black, walking around a gated community. If Martin was wearing a suit and carrying flowers, Zimmerman would not have thought him suspicious. It was the combination of all those things that led Zim to think Martin was a criminal.
No.
You keep using and referring to race when discussing this case. I am trying to disabuse you of the race card YOU keep using.
What you described is called behavior profiling. That is a legitimate method of determining suspicious people from non-suspicious people. Environmental factors are part of behavior profiling. Historical factors are part of behavior profiling.
It was the combination of all those things that led Zim to think Martin was....suspicious. (fixed it for you)
No shit Sherlock. So would I. Because HE WAS FUCKING SUSPICIOUS
He did not think he was a criminal, because Zimmerman knew the law enough that if he DID have evidence of criminal activity he would have specified that to the dispatcher. He did not do that. He did, however articulate specific things about Martin's behavior that do create a reasonable suspicion that Martin was involved in criminal activity and that the police should come and investigate.
If the events unfolded differently, and the police had arrived and found Martin walking down the street they would have stopped him, possibly detaining him while they investigated his activity. Why? How could they do that? Because Zimmerman's articulated reasonable suspicion of Martin's behavior would give the police legal cause to do so.
In other words, what Zimmerman observed of Martin was indeed suspicious enough legally for the police to investigate him. So yes, it is a combination of those things that made Zimmerman think Martin was suspicious. It was also a combination of those things that would make the police think Martin was suspicious as well.
I'd tell them not to be a dumb ass and stalk people.
You say Z was stalking M, but there isn't any proof of that. Even if he was - since when does following a person, even questioning them, constitute a threat justifying M's attack on Z?
Hmm? Or are you just going to go full retard?
I think I have figured out why you guys are so pro-Zim
Who said I was pro? I'm judging this on the facts. Z made mistakes and he killed someone. M made mistakes, he apparently left the house and assaulted Z. How fucking stupid can you be?
Zim is Michael Douglas in Falling Down and he just has to be in the right, right?
Too late, you've gone full retard.
You're the one that has to make this into a racial/morality tale - something black and white, you're with us or against us. You refuse to see that both parties made mistakes because you love beating up on white people (including yourself) to make your idiotic white-guilt meaningful.
and/or into drugs to make him look bad
FUCK YOU, you're the one that supports the war on drugs, not me.
GD, you are holding up this case as some sort of metric about racial profiling
I am? Really?
Can't think of a better video to sum up my thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict.
Most people that are white, including myself, just don't really know what this is like....I'm hoping that you will see what Trayvon Martin was likely dealing with before he was shot.
doesn't let in the undesireables....George Zimmerman....Only a certain type of person is allowed....
The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that.
Who's the one holding up this case as some sort of a metric about racial profiling?
My main friustrstion here is that unless someone is walking around in a white sheet and white hat screaming about white supremacy, you guys don't think there is racism. You under react to the same frustrating degree that Al Sharpton over reacts.
My main friustrstion here is that unless someone is walking around in a white sheet and white hat screaming about white supremacy, you guys don't think there is racism.
Now that is a productive comment. You are upset that we don't see the world the same as you about something that really has nothing to do with the case at hand. You really ought to try being that self aware more often.
Post a Comment