Zimmerman acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin
July 13, 2013 11:51 PM Subscribe
After more than 16 hours of deliberating, a six-woman jury in Florida has acquitted George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin. Many commentators are outraged by what they see as another failure of the criminal justice system to deliver justice for an African-American. Others point out that this verdict depended on the unique nature of the law in Florida.
- How White Supremacy Acquits George Zimmerman
- How ALEC Helped George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder
- Seven Faces of NRA/ALEC-Approved "Stand Your Ground" Law
- Disturbing chart shows rise in “justified killings” of blacks in U.S.
- NAACP petition to open a civil rights case against George Zimmerman
Stalk and shoot or be stalked and shot. That's how I live.
posted by iloveit at 11:57 PM on July 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by iloveit at 11:57 PM on July 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Oh. Holy. Fuck. The reaction to this is going to be ugly.
posted by dejah420 at 11:58 PM on July 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by dejah420 at 11:58 PM on July 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Will anyone be surprised if George Zimmerman gets his gun back, shoots and kills another unarmed black kid, and then gets acquitted again?
posted by andoatnp at 11:59 PM on July 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by andoatnp at 11:59 PM on July 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman is going to be too busy making the rounds doing talks for racists and gun nuts to kill again - it's them that will do the killing.
posted by Artw at 12:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
Others point out that this verdict depended on the unique nature of the law in Florida.
Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [129 favorites]
Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [129 favorites]
It would be nice if the sight of a gun made him want to vomit uncontrollably for the rest of his life but I would bet ready money that he will be a guest speaker at an NRA convention in the near future.
posted by elizardbits at 12:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 12:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I've been reluctant to follow this case since the trial began--and even a long while before that. I just didn't want to let the disgusting media circus of it all into my life. I didn't expect any decent reporting, I didn't expect to feel like I actually understood all the facts, and I knew that the cable news networks would draw every possible shred of drama out of this that they possibly could for the sake of ratings...
...and as a result, it's hard to have much to say about the case or the verdict. I feel like I should have an opinion about the case, but all I can say with any real confidence is that our media just plain sucks.
I wish they had to come out and admit publicly that they suck. I wish Nancy Grace and all the rest had to endure some harsh, public, come-to-Jesus interview on live TV (by a real journalist, probably someone who worked for an indie paper or a non-US entity) where they explained why they took incidents like this and made them into courtroom sports entertainment, and where they'd be confronted by the real people they hurt and had to face up to the harm they do to this country.
But I'll never get that. And neither will Trayvon. And that part of it all sucks, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
...and as a result, it's hard to have much to say about the case or the verdict. I feel like I should have an opinion about the case, but all I can say with any real confidence is that our media just plain sucks.
I wish they had to come out and admit publicly that they suck. I wish Nancy Grace and all the rest had to endure some harsh, public, come-to-Jesus interview on live TV (by a real journalist, probably someone who worked for an indie paper or a non-US entity) where they explained why they took incidents like this and made them into courtroom sports entertainment, and where they'd be confronted by the real people they hurt and had to face up to the harm they do to this country.
But I'll never get that. And neither will Trayvon. And that part of it all sucks, too.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
It would be nice if Obama pulls his thumb out of his ass, stops wasting taxpayers time and money eavesdropping on us, and sends the DoJ to investigate the gangsterism that is the Floridian and Texan legal systems.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [30 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [30 favorites]
I don't know the law. Maybe this was the right decision legally, I can't speak to that. Innocent until proven guilty and all, and the prosecution couldn't make a persuasive case about what exactly happened that night.
But this is just wrong. If that man hadn't decided to be a yahoo vigilante with a gun, and if he hadn't looked at that young man and only seen a criminal, Trayvon would be alive today. He should bear the responsibility for that.
posted by gkhan at 12:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [66 favorites]
But this is just wrong. If that man hadn't decided to be a yahoo vigilante with a gun, and if he hadn't looked at that young man and only seen a criminal, Trayvon would be alive today. He should bear the responsibility for that.
posted by gkhan at 12:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [66 favorites]
For those worried that the US might steal all the shame for itself on this one, it's good to see Britain's moral carbuncle Louise Mensch getting stuck in on the pro-shooting-children side over on Twitter.
posted by ominous_paws at 12:06 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by ominous_paws at 12:06 AM on July 14, 2013
Bury the rag deep in your face...
posted by chortly at 12:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by chortly at 12:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
This tweet pretty much sums up the week.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [24 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [24 favorites]
A friend and I had a discussion about this case last week. The friend opened it up with "what do think will happen when Zimmerman gets acquitted?" I was floored, said there was no way the guy would walk from this. He then pointed out Zimmerman wasn't even charged with anything by local cops, that it was weeks of national outrage that even brought charges, and we had a frank discussion about how bad this would be.
I can't believe it actually happened though (my friend is extra cynical), I feel terrible about his parents. I'd be beyond angry, depressed, etc to lose my son and then get no justice for his killing.
posted by mathowie at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [51 favorites]
I can't believe it actually happened though (my friend is extra cynical), I feel terrible about his parents. I'd be beyond angry, depressed, etc to lose my son and then get no justice for his killing.
posted by mathowie at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [51 favorites]
Zimmerman acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin
Well I guess that settles that.
posted by mazola at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013
Well I guess that settles that.
posted by mazola at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:05 AM on 7/14
Most eponysterical comment ever.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Most eponysterical comment ever.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
What are the chances Zimmerman ever faces an investigation for the sexual assault allegations? It's amazing how much pain this guy has left in his wake.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:05 AM on 7/14
Most eponysterical comment ever.
I don't know whether that should make me laugh or if I should just go hide under a rock. :/
(No, I'm not taking that personally.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Most eponysterical comment ever.
I don't know whether that should make me laugh or if I should just go hide under a rock. :/
(No, I'm not taking that personally.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
What are the chances Zimmerman ever faces an investigation for the sexual assault allegations?
I can't imagine anyone will bother.
posted by elizardbits at 12:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I can't imagine anyone will bother.
posted by elizardbits at 12:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
jay smooth on twitter: "The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George ZImmermans."
posted by andoatnp at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [123 favorites]
posted by andoatnp at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [123 favorites]
Six women on the jury acquitted George Zimmerman. The state failed to prove what was a difficult case. Hard to see the right-wing conspiracy in this. The racial prejudice that convicted him outside of the courtroom, OTOH, is hard to miss.
posted by three blind mice at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
posted by three blind mice at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
I can't believe it actually happened though
The fix was in since before the trial.
posted by Artw at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The fix was in since before the trial.
posted by Artw at 12:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The racial prejudice that convicted him
Really. You really think that Zimmerman's race, and not him killing a teenaged black kid is the outrageous race related thing here. Ok sure.
posted by cashman at 12:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [96 favorites]
Really. You really think that Zimmerman's race, and not him killing a teenaged black kid is the outrageous race related thing here. Ok sure.
posted by cashman at 12:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [96 favorites]
I just don't understand how everyone defending Zimmerman keeps saying how he was defending himself from Trayvon sitting on top of him beating him. Which, even if we assume this is totally true (BIG if!), just completely ignores that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him against explicit instructions. He wasn't defending himself at that point. Had he never done that, he never would have had to supposedly "defend" himself.
I mean, wtf. How can people even go on and on in great detail about how Trayvon was such a big threat to poor Zimmerman, who was scared for his life and completely ignore that Zimmerman initiated the whole thing, without reason and against instructions? That's what blows my mind.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:15 AM on July 14, 2013 [140 favorites]
I mean, wtf. How can people even go on and on in great detail about how Trayvon was such a big threat to poor Zimmerman, who was scared for his life and completely ignore that Zimmerman initiated the whole thing, without reason and against instructions? That's what blows my mind.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:15 AM on July 14, 2013 [140 favorites]
the difference between the warning-shot firing mother and zimmerman just shows how cra-zy our criminal legal system is. there are people in california serving life sentences for stealing socks under their 3-strikes law. not to mention tossing people into jail for years for minor drug offenses.
posted by camdan at 12:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by camdan at 12:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
You should refer to the previous thread triggerfinger. The legal issues were hashed out in excruciating detail.
posted by Justinian at 12:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Legally speaking he's walking because Florida self defence reverses the burden of proof; all the defence have to do is demonstrate a prima facie case for self defence that the prosecution then have to disprove. The main opposing witness is dead, so that's a problematically high bar.
posted by jaduncan at 12:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 12:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
Justin Peters, writing for Slate, predicted that this would happen.
So, I suppose the system worked...?
posted by peripathetic at 12:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
So, I suppose the system worked...?
posted by peripathetic at 12:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hard to see the right-wing conspiracy in this. The racial prejudice that convicted him outside of the courtroom, OTOH, is hard to miss.
Zimmerman hunted and killed a kid. Go home.
posted by samofidelis at 12:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [156 favorites]
Zimmerman hunted and killed a kid. Go home.
posted by samofidelis at 12:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [156 favorites]
How can people even go on and on in great detail about how Trayvon was such a big threat to poor Zimmerman, who was scared for his life and completely ignore that Zimmerman initiated the whole thing, without reason and against instructions?
For a terrifyingly large segment of the US population, black men are apparently a serious threat by virtue of their very existence. The only thing Martin had to do to scare Zimmerman was to be alive.
posted by elizardbits at 12:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [79 favorites]
For a terrifyingly large segment of the US population, black men are apparently a serious threat by virtue of their very existence. The only thing Martin had to do to scare Zimmerman was to be alive.
posted by elizardbits at 12:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [79 favorites]
Dear Florida,
My two sons are dark-skinned and, as children often do, they sometimes misbehave. They challenge authority and push limits and don't like to be told what to do. Because they are children, I don't consider them fully capable of making good decisions in the middle of night under threat of violence. My children are also intelligent, gifted, loving, talented people, who've traveled the world and have much to contribute to whichever community they're choose to participate in. It's clear that dark skinned children in your state who are challenged by non uniformed personnel of authority are lawfully fair game to be shot and killed under some bizarre racial paranoia you live under. My kids, the sons of two community activist physicians, are likely to become positive forces for good wherever they find their path in life leads them.
Their path will not lead them to Florida, a place that could obviously use the help of intelligent talented young people to improve a whole shitstorm of social problems. In fact, they might be drawn there, because that's where the need is great. But I will forbid it. There's plenty to do in places where the rule of law isn't guided by paranoia and enforced by lone civilians With firearms making decisions to kill children based on what they were afraid in the middle of the night. You've created a brutal, obscene society down there and you deserve all that you will inherit. Maybe it's time we start to evacuate certain "threatening" people out of there, so they can possibly lead normal lives where they aren't presumed guilty by people with heavier fire power in the middle of the night.
In summary fuck you, once again, Florida. Everything bad in this country comes from you, and this is the growing consensus through rest of the country.
Sincerely,
The father of 2 rebellious kids of color
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [185 favorites]
My two sons are dark-skinned and, as children often do, they sometimes misbehave. They challenge authority and push limits and don't like to be told what to do. Because they are children, I don't consider them fully capable of making good decisions in the middle of night under threat of violence. My children are also intelligent, gifted, loving, talented people, who've traveled the world and have much to contribute to whichever community they're choose to participate in. It's clear that dark skinned children in your state who are challenged by non uniformed personnel of authority are lawfully fair game to be shot and killed under some bizarre racial paranoia you live under. My kids, the sons of two community activist physicians, are likely to become positive forces for good wherever they find their path in life leads them.
Their path will not lead them to Florida, a place that could obviously use the help of intelligent talented young people to improve a whole shitstorm of social problems. In fact, they might be drawn there, because that's where the need is great. But I will forbid it. There's plenty to do in places where the rule of law isn't guided by paranoia and enforced by lone civilians With firearms making decisions to kill children based on what they were afraid in the middle of the night. You've created a brutal, obscene society down there and you deserve all that you will inherit. Maybe it's time we start to evacuate certain "threatening" people out of there, so they can possibly lead normal lives where they aren't presumed guilty by people with heavier fire power in the middle of the night.
In summary fuck you, once again, Florida. Everything bad in this country comes from you, and this is the growing consensus through rest of the country.
Sincerely,
The father of 2 rebellious kids of color
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [185 favorites]
If you're interested, look up the case of Robert Thomas Sr. in Seattle. More than a decade ago, almost this exact thing happened. Black guy minding his own business on a neighborhood street in the middle of the day, when a white guy decides he thinks the black guy doesn't belong there and comes out of his house to confront the black guy. Guess who was shot in the chest and died? The black guy. Who killed him and got found not guilty? The white guy, who was an off-duty police officer but never said that, just approached with a weapon.
posted by cashman at 12:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by cashman at 12:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Zimmerman hunted and killed a kid. Go home.
The prosecution wasn't able to prove this. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin. But there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt presented by the prosecution that Zimmerman had followed this kid with the intent to kill him. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, but Zimmerman was in his right to do so, just as I'm able to approach people in the streets freely. He wasn't obligated to listen to dispatch advice. We don't know what happened next. We don't know if Martin attacked Zimmerman. We don't know if Zimmerman attacked Martin. Innocent until proven guilty.
posted by SollosQ at 12:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
The prosecution wasn't able to prove this. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin. But there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt presented by the prosecution that Zimmerman had followed this kid with the intent to kill him. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, but Zimmerman was in his right to do so, just as I'm able to approach people in the streets freely. He wasn't obligated to listen to dispatch advice. We don't know what happened next. We don't know if Martin attacked Zimmerman. We don't know if Zimmerman attacked Martin. Innocent until proven guilty.
posted by SollosQ at 12:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
Other letters from parents of black children, related to this case: The Bullet Next Time: An Open Letter to My Unborn, Black Son.
posted by cashman at 12:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by cashman at 12:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Zimmerman's brother worries for George's safety: "There are people that would want to take the law into their own hands as they perceive it, or be vigilantes in some sense."
I just...augh.
posted by naoko at 12:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [114 favorites]
I just...augh.
posted by naoko at 12:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [114 favorites]
I just don't understand how everyone defending Zimmerman keeps saying how he was defending himself from Trayvon sitting on top of him beating him. Which, even if we assume this is totally true (BIG if!), just completely ignores that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him against explicit instructions. He wasn't defending himself at that point. Had he never done that, he never would have had to supposedly "defend" himself.
Because he had a right, a lawful right - and I'm willing to bet this is one of the pieces the aquittal hinged on - to be there. Whether or not we think he was a dick for doing so, he had a lawful right to follow Martin. And he had a lawful right to follow Martin without being punched in the face, or grabbed, or any of that stuff. Zimmerman's words do not a legitimate attack by Martin make. We may think he had no moral right to follow, but under the law he was not acting improperly.
And the law does not accept "following" as a legitimate provocation to a fight. A legitimate provocation to a fight has to be something that everyone would understand was initiating a physical fight. And that is just not the case. No matter how outraged people are about what they think Zimmerman was doing, it was just not the case.
Zimmerman was also not legally required to listen to the suggestions of the dispatcher. It'd be nice if he did - but he is not required to do so. And him failing to do so does not mean he doesn't get to defend himsef. It doesn't mean he needs to watch his brains get beaten in without raising a protest.
posted by corb at 12:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [24 favorites]
Because he had a right, a lawful right - and I'm willing to bet this is one of the pieces the aquittal hinged on - to be there. Whether or not we think he was a dick for doing so, he had a lawful right to follow Martin. And he had a lawful right to follow Martin without being punched in the face, or grabbed, or any of that stuff. Zimmerman's words do not a legitimate attack by Martin make. We may think he had no moral right to follow, but under the law he was not acting improperly.
And the law does not accept "following" as a legitimate provocation to a fight. A legitimate provocation to a fight has to be something that everyone would understand was initiating a physical fight. And that is just not the case. No matter how outraged people are about what they think Zimmerman was doing, it was just not the case.
Zimmerman was also not legally required to listen to the suggestions of the dispatcher. It'd be nice if he did - but he is not required to do so. And him failing to do so does not mean he doesn't get to defend himsef. It doesn't mean he needs to watch his brains get beaten in without raising a protest.
posted by corb at 12:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [24 favorites]
Zimmerman Has Been Found Not Guilty. Now What? The racially charged trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin has ended, but George Zimmerman might not be done defending himself in court.
posted by homunculus at 12:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It doesn't mean he needs to watch his brains get beaten in without raising a protest.
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [115 favorites]
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [115 favorites]
Hang on are those not the same in the states
posted by ominous_paws at 12:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 12:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
It doesn't mean he needs to watch his brains get beaten in without raising a protest.
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
And do we know that this happened? I didn't watch the trial, but this seems like a pretty big piece of evidence that the prosecution would have wanted to have run with.
posted by SollosQ at 12:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
And do we know that this happened? I didn't watch the trial, but this seems like a pretty big piece of evidence that the prosecution would have wanted to have run with.
posted by SollosQ at 12:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Er... there is no dispute that Zimmerman shot Martin. We know that happened for a fact, SollosQ.
posted by Justinian at 12:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Maybe take a minute and think about why you're so desperate to see a way that it was totally okay for this armed man to stalk and kill a kid.
posted by samofidelis at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [105 favorites]
posted by samofidelis at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [105 favorites]
This was a MINOR. A teenage boy, alone at night being followed and confronted by a grown adult man that he perceived and described as "creepy" with, frankly, a suspicious sounding reason for following him (neighborhood watch? out looking for teenage boys? orly?). When does self defense start, can someone who thinks an armed man is fabricating a reason to approach them alone on a dark street late at night fight back or not? How can this be anything but manslaughter? Zimmerman created the situation that resulted in the young mans death.
I'm a woman and one time a guy grabbed my ass on the street and I punched him out and broke his nose and he fell down and most likely hit his head on the ground. Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now? Because I'm starting to wonder.
posted by fshgrl at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [165 favorites]
I'm a woman and one time a guy grabbed my ass on the street and I punched him out and broke his nose and he fell down and most likely hit his head on the ground. Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now? Because I'm starting to wonder.
posted by fshgrl at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [165 favorites]
And do we know that this happened? I didn't watch the trial, but this seems like a pretty big piece of evidence that the prosecution would have wanted to have run with.
Everyone (including Zimmerman) agreed that Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin. Thanks for gracing us with your well researched reckons.
posted by jaduncan at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Everyone (including Zimmerman) agreed that Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin. Thanks for gracing us with your well researched reckons.
posted by jaduncan at 12:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Er... there is no dispute that Zimmerman shot Martin. We know that happened for a fact, SollosQ.
posted by Justinian at 12:31 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
Everyone (including Zimmerman) agreed that Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin. Thanks for gracing us with your well researched reckons.
posted by jaduncan at 12:32 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
But the whole question is whether or not Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin in self-defense. And that right rests on whether or not Zimmerman simply followed Martin, or if he followed Martin with his gun pulled out and pointed at Martin thereby giving Martin a justifiable reason for self-defense.
posted by SollosQ at 12:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:31 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
Everyone (including Zimmerman) agreed that Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin. Thanks for gracing us with your well researched reckons.
posted by jaduncan at 12:32 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
But the whole question is whether or not Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin in self-defense. And that right rests on whether or not Zimmerman simply followed Martin, or if he followed Martin with his gun pulled out and pointed at Martin thereby giving Martin a justifiable reason for self-defense.
posted by SollosQ at 12:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
he had a lawful right to follow
I beg you. I urge you. Please use this the next time some woman on metafilter says she had someone following her who got close and she struck the first blow. When the woman says she watched some stranger follow her leading to her house, and he got close, and she punched him rather than waiting for the stranger to attack, please interject with "he had a lawful right to follow you".
Extra points if it's a teenaged girl saying this. Please promise you'll say this, I can't wait to see you do it.
posted by cashman at 12:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [346 favorites]
I beg you. I urge you. Please use this the next time some woman on metafilter says she had someone following her who got close and she struck the first blow. When the woman says she watched some stranger follow her leading to her house, and he got close, and she punched him rather than waiting for the stranger to attack, please interject with "he had a lawful right to follow you".
Extra points if it's a teenaged girl saying this. Please promise you'll say this, I can't wait to see you do it.
posted by cashman at 12:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [346 favorites]
And everyone agrees that Zimmerman got him where nobody could see what was going on. Case closed, clearly.
posted by Artw at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now? Because I'm starting to wonder.
In Florida? The answer would appear to be yes. Double yes if you are black, or at least darker than your assailant.
posted by elizardbits at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
In Florida? The answer would appear to be yes. Double yes if you are black, or at least darker than your assailant.
posted by elizardbits at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
I often take late night walks around my neighborhood, by myself.
If I saw a guy -- of any race -- following me in his car I'd be suspicious. If he stopped and got out to follow me on foot, I'd be down right terrified. If he got closer and closer, you can bet my fight or flight response would kick in.
You say Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin. But what about Martin's right to walk around his neighborhood peacefully, unmolested, unthreatened?
I don't personally think Zimmerman is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. But the moment he got out of his car with his gun he knowingly, needlessly created a dangerous situation that lead to Martin's death. That's manslaughter to me, and I don't know how the jury failed to see that.
posted by sbutler at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [121 favorites]
If I saw a guy -- of any race -- following me in his car I'd be suspicious. If he stopped and got out to follow me on foot, I'd be down right terrified. If he got closer and closer, you can bet my fight or flight response would kick in.
You say Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin. But what about Martin's right to walk around his neighborhood peacefully, unmolested, unthreatened?
I don't personally think Zimmerman is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. But the moment he got out of his car with his gun he knowingly, needlessly created a dangerous situation that lead to Martin's death. That's manslaughter to me, and I don't know how the jury failed to see that.
posted by sbutler at 12:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [121 favorites]
I just wanted to add that I'm not slamming the jury here. It sounds like Zimmerman was technically in the right. But that is a fucked up right, to be able to confront a legal minor in that way and then claim self defense.
posted by fshgrl at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
I feel like we're talking past each other, because no one here seems concerned with whether what Zimmerman did was lawful or not, but rather whether they thought it right or not.
posted by SollosQ at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by SollosQ at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
he had a lawful right to follow.
I beg you. I urge you. Please use this the next time some woman on metafilter says she had someone following her who got close and she struck the first blow. When the woman says she watched some stranger follow her leading to her house, and he got close, and she punched him rather than waiting for the stranger to attack, please interject with "he had a lawful right to follow you".
This, this, this, million times.
posted by ducky l'orange at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
I beg you. I urge you. Please use this the next time some woman on metafilter says she had someone following her who got close and she struck the first blow. When the woman says she watched some stranger follow her leading to her house, and he got close, and she punched him rather than waiting for the stranger to attack, please interject with "he had a lawful right to follow you".
This, this, this, million times.
posted by ducky l'orange at 12:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
The not guilty verdict on manslaughter is fucking bizarre.
posted by Artw at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Maybe take a minute and think about why you're so desperate to see a way that it was totally okay for this armed man to stalk and kill a kid.
Some people - commenters, in the media, certainly online - have had over a year to think about why they take 100% the word of the shooter over any evidence that he might be lying, including many of the lies he has already told.
I think their positions are etched in stone.
posted by gadge emeritus at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Some people - commenters, in the media, certainly online - have had over a year to think about why they take 100% the word of the shooter over any evidence that he might be lying, including many of the lies he has already told.
I think their positions are etched in stone.
posted by gadge emeritus at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Having watched almost the entire trial, I now wish I hadn't, because this lingering disgust for the media will not fade for a while. Or for the prosecution, because what they've shown was not enough to ethically bring the case: no reasonable jury could have reached any verdict but acquittal.
posted by cheburashka at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by cheburashka at 12:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
That's manslaughter to me, and I don't know how the jury failed to see that.
Because the law makes this sort of manslaughter legal. The issue really really is that Florida has made it completely legal for somebody to follow a black teenager, unprovoked by anything other than a hoodie and skin color, and then shoot him to death.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [75 favorites]
Because the law makes this sort of manslaughter legal. The issue really really is that Florida has made it completely legal for somebody to follow a black teenager, unprovoked by anything other than a hoodie and skin color, and then shoot him to death.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [75 favorites]
"The system worked!"
posted by Artw at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think their positions are etched in stone.
It's funny, because since Day 0, people have been on either Zimmerman or Martin's side, without waiting until today or later, after due process, and evidence could be presented.
posted by SollosQ at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
It's funny, because since Day 0, people have been on either Zimmerman or Martin's side, without waiting until today or later, after due process, and evidence could be presented.
posted by SollosQ at 12:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
no one here seems concerned with whether what Zimmerman did was lawful or not
Quite on the contrary, it seems a lot of people are concerned that what Zimmerman did was considered lawful.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [109 favorites]
Quite on the contrary, it seems a lot of people are concerned that what Zimmerman did was considered lawful.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [109 favorites]
The jury decided it was lawful.
The problem is that the law is bad.
posted by mephron at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [62 favorites]
The problem is that the law is bad.
posted by mephron at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [62 favorites]
Kinda mind boggling that our version of the system working is that we have a law that would let me follow someone and then shoot them if they get scared and try to slug me or something.
Sure it may be the law but it sure as hell ain't right.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Sure it may be the law but it sure as hell ain't right.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Artw: "The not guilty verdict on manslaughter is fucking bizarre."
Word. You can accidentally hit someone with your car and get manslaughter. You can fail to wash your hands at a place you prepare and serve food leading to a customer's death and get manslaughter. You can build a house that falls apart years later and get manslaughter.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [58 favorites]
Word. You can accidentally hit someone with your car and get manslaughter. You can fail to wash your hands at a place you prepare and serve food leading to a customer's death and get manslaughter. You can build a house that falls apart years later and get manslaughter.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [58 favorites]
I've read the previous threads and I'm sure I'm forgetting some details or other of the SYG law in FL. But by almost any reading of what happened here, George Zimmerman was in the wrong. And if there's some crazy law that somehow makes what he did okay? That he, unprovoked, racially profiled and followed and killed a boy who did absolutely nothing to him? Well then the law is wrong. And that we sit and argue about technicalities of a bad law while ignoring the bigger picture of what really happened is maddening and tragic.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 12:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Very disappointing...but unfortunately, not surprising.
posted by SisterHavana at 12:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by SisterHavana at 12:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't think I've ever been literally horrified by a jury's decision before. I can't believe this.
posted by a hat out of hell at 12:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by a hat out of hell at 12:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Having watched almost the entire trial, I now wish I hadn't, because this lingering disgust for the media will not fade for a while.
Embrace it, embrace it.
posted by mannequito at 12:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Embrace it, embrace it.
posted by mannequito at 12:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
There isn't much question in my mind that Trayvon Martin fought Zimmerman. But in any sane system, we'd give the jury legal instructions that said it was Martin who was using lawful self defense -- and that Zimmerman, as the first aggressor, couldn't claim the defense.
You could see this outcome coming but it is nonetheless Kafkaesque.
posted by bearwife at 12:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
You could see this outcome coming but it is nonetheless Kafkaesque.
posted by bearwife at 12:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
In its majestic equality, the law permits the lighter-skinned men and the darker-skinned men alike to follow strangers, confront them with a firearm, and shoot them if they use their fists to defend themselves. (Apologies to Anatole France.)
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was convicted here.
posted by Artw at 12:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [79 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [79 favorites]
Artw: “The not guilty verdict on manslaughter is fucking bizarre.”I wondered about this when it was reported that the jury asked for clarification on manslaughter. The report I read, which I of course cannot find the link for now, indicated that self-defense makes it a justifiable homicide and meant that Zimmerman could be found guilty of neither murder nor manslaughter.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman's brother worries for George's safety: "There are people that would want to take the law into their own hands as they perceive it, or be vigilantes in some sense."
Zimmerman's Brother Calls Trayvon Martin a Gun-Running Dope Fiend
posted by homunculus at 12:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman's Brother Calls Trayvon Martin a Gun-Running Dope Fiend
posted by homunculus at 12:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
But the whole question is whether or not Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin in self-defense. And that right rests on whether or not Zimmerman simply followed Martin, or if he followed Martin with his gun pulled out and pointed at Martin thereby giving Martin a justifiable reason for self-defense.
Ah, I see my mistake. I'm afraid I was responding to the question you actually asked (do we know he raised a gun) rather than the one you changed it to.
posted by jaduncan at 12:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Ah, I see my mistake. I'm afraid I was responding to the question you actually asked (do we know he raised a gun) rather than the one you changed it to.
posted by jaduncan at 12:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Zimmerman's brother worries for George's safety: "There are people that would want to take the law into their own hands as they perceive it, or be vigilantes in some sense."
What does one even say to this?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
What does one even say to this?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
"I want to know if it's true, and I don't know if it's true, that Trayvon Martin was looking to procure firearms, or growing marijuana, or looking to make lean," he told Piers Morgan and Don Lemon.Aaaand your humanity card is hereby revoked, please exit the species to your left.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [43 favorites]
I'm afraid I was responding to the question you actually asked (do we know he raised a gun) rather than the one you changed it to.
I didn't change my question, you just don't understand. We all know he raised his gun (as a logical necessity in order to Zimmerman to shoot Martin while Zimmerman was being beaten). But there's no evidence (from what I've been told) that Zimmerman had raised his gun before he and Martin found themselves in a fight, which would be evidence that Martin was just acting in self-defense and that therefore Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter.
posted by SollosQ at 1:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I didn't change my question, you just don't understand. We all know he raised his gun (as a logical necessity in order to Zimmerman to shoot Martin while Zimmerman was being beaten). But there's no evidence (from what I've been told) that Zimmerman had raised his gun before he and Martin found themselves in a fight, which would be evidence that Martin was just acting in self-defense and that therefore Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter.
posted by SollosQ at 1:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It doesn't mean he needs to watch his brains get beaten in without raising a protest.
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
And do we know that this happened?
Given that elizardbits was saying that he pulled the weapon during the fight, I feel you may be misreading her then.
posted by jaduncan at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
He didn't raise a fucking protest. He raised a fucking gun.
posted by elizardbits at 12:27 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
And do we know that this happened?
Given that elizardbits was saying that he pulled the weapon during the fight, I feel you may be misreading her then.
posted by jaduncan at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Artw: It's very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was convicted here.
To me it really felt more like a failure of the evidence. Most of the plausible scenarios where Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter/murder (Zimmerman starting the fight, Zimmerman brandishing the gun ahead of time, etc.) wouldn't necessarily have left behind physical evidence. So all you're left with is his account, and it's hard to overcome reasonable doubt (I think the cops coached him in how to properly give an account at the very beginning, to make his testimony consistent).
Of course I think he should have gotten manslaughter for causing the entire stupid situation to occur in the first place by stalking a stranger while openly armed, but I'm not sure that's legally valid. Pity.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
To me it really felt more like a failure of the evidence. Most of the plausible scenarios where Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter/murder (Zimmerman starting the fight, Zimmerman brandishing the gun ahead of time, etc.) wouldn't necessarily have left behind physical evidence. So all you're left with is his account, and it's hard to overcome reasonable doubt (I think the cops coached him in how to properly give an account at the very beginning, to make his testimony consistent).
Of course I think he should have gotten manslaughter for causing the entire stupid situation to occur in the first place by stalking a stranger while openly armed, but I'm not sure that's legally valid. Pity.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
I assume there's a reason there was only a jury of six people on this trial? I mean, I was on a civil suit jury earlier this year in California, and it had 12 people and no burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." I wonder if it would've been different.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:05 AM on July 14, 2013
I assume there's a reason there was only a jury of six people on this trial? I mean, I was on a civil suit jury earlier this year in California, and it had 12 people and no burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." I wonder if it would've been different.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:05 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
The Florida rules of criminal procedures say that “twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and 6 persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases."
posted by SollosQ at 1:07 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:05 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
The Florida rules of criminal procedures say that “twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and 6 persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases."
posted by SollosQ at 1:07 AM on July 14, 2013
Zimmerman's Brother Calls Trayvon Martin a Gun-Running Dope Fiend
Those comments.
The commenters seem very sure that the skittles were for making "lean". Proof that Martin was some kind of dope fiend is that he posted on Facebook "robitussin and soda makes bomb ass lean". Skittles are apparently a major ingredient in your bomb ass robitussin lean.
Somebody tell the DEA about this shit. I could go across the street the the Duane Reade and get all that stuff.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Those comments.
The commenters seem very sure that the skittles were for making "lean". Proof that Martin was some kind of dope fiend is that he posted on Facebook "robitussin and soda makes bomb ass lean". Skittles are apparently a major ingredient in your bomb ass robitussin lean.
Somebody tell the DEA about this shit. I could go across the street the the Duane Reade and get all that stuff.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Random question - why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?
posted by newdaddy at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
That statute is bizarre to me.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013
I'm going to cut & paste what I said earlier (last comment in the other thread) which was in response to something lord_wolf had said.
there will be people who can clinically and dispassionately talk about how the system works
With a great deal of respect for your comment, lord_wolf, I don't think there's much consensus that the system works. The system failed at several points (which different people will agree or disagree about): the writing of the Florida self-defense laws; the failure to arrest Zimmerman immediately; the permissiveness re CCWs; the prosecution's gamble that it could get Zimmerman on murder or manslaughter.
I think the system "worked" in the sense that the jury probably came to an honest conclusion based on the law and their instructions. I don't think the jury is at fault (that quote up above is abominable), but they were constrained by circumstances caused by flaws in the system all along.
There is no question that Zimmerman caused the altercation (regardless of who started the physical part) by following Martin. There is no question that he caused the fatal outcome because he was carrying a gun and was prepared to use it in a fight. It's fucked up that that might not be enough even for manslaughter, but I can understand the jury arriving at that conclusion given what they had to work with.
But I absolutely do not understand the people celebrating that "justice was served." Because, lacking Trayvon Martin's account of the story, we do not know what happened. As the defense attorney pointed out with his "burden of proof" chart, the jury could have arrived at "not guilty" even thinking Zimmerman's actions were "highly unlikely self defense." Given that, it seems like a little deference might keep people from claiming this outcome was just. Deference to the very good possibility that Zimmerman didn't actually meet the standard for self-defense, but that the prosecution was simply unable to prove that. In which case--the trial system might have worked fine, but justice was not served.
By the way did we ever find out what the question was the jury wanted answered about manslaughter? I haven't see it. Also, were the jurors seen on TV? I haven't been able to find pictures. I had read that one was either black or hispanic and was interested to know if that was true.
lord_wolf, thank you for your comments on the whole subject. I remember appreciating your contributions in the very first thread about Trayvon Martin. I'm sorry for the sorrow & cynicism that follows this verdict, for you and your family.
posted by torticat at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
there will be people who can clinically and dispassionately talk about how the system works
With a great deal of respect for your comment, lord_wolf, I don't think there's much consensus that the system works. The system failed at several points (which different people will agree or disagree about): the writing of the Florida self-defense laws; the failure to arrest Zimmerman immediately; the permissiveness re CCWs; the prosecution's gamble that it could get Zimmerman on murder or manslaughter.
I think the system "worked" in the sense that the jury probably came to an honest conclusion based on the law and their instructions. I don't think the jury is at fault (that quote up above is abominable), but they were constrained by circumstances caused by flaws in the system all along.
There is no question that Zimmerman caused the altercation (regardless of who started the physical part) by following Martin. There is no question that he caused the fatal outcome because he was carrying a gun and was prepared to use it in a fight. It's fucked up that that might not be enough even for manslaughter, but I can understand the jury arriving at that conclusion given what they had to work with.
But I absolutely do not understand the people celebrating that "justice was served." Because, lacking Trayvon Martin's account of the story, we do not know what happened. As the defense attorney pointed out with his "burden of proof" chart, the jury could have arrived at "not guilty" even thinking Zimmerman's actions were "highly unlikely self defense." Given that, it seems like a little deference might keep people from claiming this outcome was just. Deference to the very good possibility that Zimmerman didn't actually meet the standard for self-defense, but that the prosecution was simply unable to prove that. In which case--the trial system might have worked fine, but justice was not served.
By the way did we ever find out what the question was the jury wanted answered about manslaughter? I haven't see it. Also, were the jurors seen on TV? I haven't been able to find pictures. I had read that one was either black or hispanic and was interested to know if that was true.
lord_wolf, thank you for your comments on the whole subject. I remember appreciating your contributions in the very first thread about Trayvon Martin. I'm sorry for the sorrow & cynicism that follows this verdict, for you and your family.
posted by torticat at 1:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
@Celsius1414: Civil cases require a preponderance of evidence whereas criminal trials require beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why your juror instructions were different.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 1:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
This has been bouncing around my facebook feed a lot.
That said, i have a feeling this is going to be a seriously historic verdict and case. The kind of thing that a modern "eyes on the prize" update would feature. Something that will be discussed in classrooms in 50 years, or even more.
Zimmerman's brother worries for George's safety
And he should. I'm actually pretty concerned that this story is going to end with him getting shot by someone, who then gets absolutely pilloried by the justice system.(note that i'm not saying i think they shouldn't be for murdering someone, just that they'll end up getting the death penalty or something)
This is absolutely not the end of this story. But i really doubt that there's any more of it that will play out in court.
posted by emptythought at 1:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
That said, i have a feeling this is going to be a seriously historic verdict and case. The kind of thing that a modern "eyes on the prize" update would feature. Something that will be discussed in classrooms in 50 years, or even more.
Zimmerman's brother worries for George's safety
And he should. I'm actually pretty concerned that this story is going to end with him getting shot by someone, who then gets absolutely pilloried by the justice system.(note that i'm not saying i think they shouldn't be for murdering someone, just that they'll end up getting the death penalty or something)
This is absolutely not the end of this story. But i really doubt that there's any more of it that will play out in court.
posted by emptythought at 1:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Jacqueline - I was referring to the fact that even a civil case (with those "lesser" requirements) had 12 jurors.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Celsius1414: “I assume there's a reason there was only a jury of six people on this trial? I mean, I was on a civil suit jury earlier this year in California, and it had 12 people and no burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." I wonder if it would've been different.”
Are Florida's six-member juries constitutional?, Howard Troxler, The Tampa Bay Times, 7 January 2009
Florida, like most states, routinely uses juries of only six members. The exception is for first-degree murder, which gets a 12-member jury.posted by ob1quixote at 1:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
self-defense makes it a justifiable homicide
The take away lesson here is that, if in Florida, if someone starts following me down the street at night, that I shouldn't defend myself. At least then the police will be able to charge them correctly.
Florida's legal system is appalling.
My sympathies to Trayvon's family, they must be having an awful time.
posted by arcticseal at 1:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
The take away lesson here is that, if in Florida, if someone starts following me down the street at night, that I shouldn't defend myself. At least then the police will be able to charge them correctly.
Florida's legal system is appalling.
My sympathies to Trayvon's family, they must be having an awful time.
posted by arcticseal at 1:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
... I think that if you look at the chart the defense held up, it does kinda show the tough job the prosecution had to get a verdict.
(and yeah, I know, that chart is grandstanding and theatrics, but it works as an illustration.)
posted by torticat at 1:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
(and yeah, I know, that chart is grandstanding and theatrics, but it works as an illustration.)
posted by torticat at 1:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The take away lesson here is that, if in Florida, if someone starts following me down the street at night, that I shouldn't defend myself.
You should shoot them dead is the lesson, especially if there are no witnesses.
posted by Artw at 1:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
You should shoot them dead is the lesson, especially if there are no witnesses.
posted by Artw at 1:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
Here's hoping Zimmerman just randomly dies of extremely painful cancer
Artw, come on man.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Artw, come on man.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:17 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of a 6-person jury in a Florida criminal case, ruling that neither the language nor the history of the U.S Constitution mandates a 12-person jury. Instead, the Supreme Court, referring to the 12-person jury as a “historical accident,” held that the purpose of a jury is to provide a cross-section of the community, and juries of less than 12 persons in serious felony cases do not violate that purpose or the constitution. Nevertheless, only two states in the U.S. (Florida and Connecticut) allow for 6-person juries for serious felony accusations.-- Bonnie Sudderth (judge)
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The take away lesson here is that, if in Florida, if someone starts following me down the street at night, that I shouldn't defend myself.
The takeaway lesson is don't be black in Florida.
posted by immlass at 1:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [41 favorites]
The takeaway lesson is don't be black in Florida.
posted by immlass at 1:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [41 favorites]
This is absolutely not the end of this story. But i really doubt that there's any more of it that will play out in court.
It may become a Federal civil rights case if the DoJ decides to file it. The NAACP has an online petition up. There's also the possibility of a civil suit, a la OJ Simpson.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It may become a Federal civil rights case if the DoJ decides to file it. The NAACP has an online petition up. There's also the possibility of a civil suit, a la OJ Simpson.
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Man, fuck Florida for good on this one. Some kinda negaverse OJ trial shit.
posted by klangklangston at 1:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 1:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
arcticseal: “The take away lesson here is that, if in Florida, if someone starts following me down the street at night, that I shouldn't defend myself. At least then the police will be able to charge them correctly.
Florida's legal system is appalling.”
The 24 States That Have Sweeping Self-Defense Laws Just Like Florida’s, Cora Currier, ProPublica, 22 March 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 1:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
It's very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was convicted here.
"The most damning element here is not that George Zimmerman was found innocent: it’s the bitter knowledge that Trayvon Martin was found guilty."
posted by homunculus at 1:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
"The most damning element here is not that George Zimmerman was found innocent: it’s the bitter knowledge that Trayvon Martin was found guilty."
posted by homunculus at 1:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
I think a lot of people living in Northeast Florida had doubts that much would go well for anyone connected with this case, except Angela Corey, once her office and prosecutorial team took over the case. It will be interesting to follow Mara's attempts to have her and her team of crack prosecutors censured for prosecutorial misconduct, and prevailing wisdom in Duval County legal circles is that Mara and West may well hang something on her, that is well deserved.
But my takeaway from this case is a smaller, and far more quiet one, than any I've seen or read in media. It happened in the middle of a conversation I was having Friday morning at breakfast, in a local cafe, while talking with a young black guy that also eats there fairly regularly, as we both sat under CNN on the television, which was rehashing the previous day's trial updates. He works as a counselor at the Jacksonville Beach Boy's Club, and while he doesn't have a lot of education, he's generally a pretty thoughtful guy, and we've had a few good conversations about local topics, including race relations in Florida beach towns.
So we're sitting there, each plowing through our breakfasts, half listening to CNN, and I said something to the effect that this all might have worked out so differently, if Trayvon Martin had called 911, like George Zimmerman was, instead of a girl he knew in Miami, and been willing to let the cops sort it out between he and Zimmerman. And then my young black acquaintance said something like "That would never happen. Even I wouldn't have called the cops, if I were in Trayvon's shoes, that night. Not very many black kids ever would be taught to do that."
And I got his quiet point, sitting there, seeing him slightly shake his head at my initial lack of comprehension.
It's not the back end of the criminal justice system that failed Trayvon Martin, it's all of us who didn't make it safe and normal for him to call 911 on the front end, throughout his life, when ever he felt threatened. Like the song from the Rogers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific says "You've got to be taught to hate and fear, you've got to be carefully taught." And maybe you've got to be taught to call 911, knowing you'll have a decent chance of getting a prompt response that takes your welfare seriously, when the cops do show up.
Like George Zimmerman was taught. (And I don't mean this at all ironically.)
posted by paulsc at 1:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [190 favorites]
But my takeaway from this case is a smaller, and far more quiet one, than any I've seen or read in media. It happened in the middle of a conversation I was having Friday morning at breakfast, in a local cafe, while talking with a young black guy that also eats there fairly regularly, as we both sat under CNN on the television, which was rehashing the previous day's trial updates. He works as a counselor at the Jacksonville Beach Boy's Club, and while he doesn't have a lot of education, he's generally a pretty thoughtful guy, and we've had a few good conversations about local topics, including race relations in Florida beach towns.
So we're sitting there, each plowing through our breakfasts, half listening to CNN, and I said something to the effect that this all might have worked out so differently, if Trayvon Martin had called 911, like George Zimmerman was, instead of a girl he knew in Miami, and been willing to let the cops sort it out between he and Zimmerman. And then my young black acquaintance said something like "That would never happen. Even I wouldn't have called the cops, if I were in Trayvon's shoes, that night. Not very many black kids ever would be taught to do that."
And I got his quiet point, sitting there, seeing him slightly shake his head at my initial lack of comprehension.
It's not the back end of the criminal justice system that failed Trayvon Martin, it's all of us who didn't make it safe and normal for him to call 911 on the front end, throughout his life, when ever he felt threatened. Like the song from the Rogers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific says "You've got to be taught to hate and fear, you've got to be carefully taught." And maybe you've got to be taught to call 911, knowing you'll have a decent chance of getting a prompt response that takes your welfare seriously, when the cops do show up.
Like George Zimmerman was taught. (And I don't mean this at all ironically.)
posted by paulsc at 1:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [190 favorites]
why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?
I suppose it's only relevant because of the rarity of such a situation. For whatever reason, both the defense and the prosecution thought that these six people would be most sympathetic to their respective cases. I believe they are all mothers, and I've seen speculation that the prosecution was hoping that the loss of a child would resonate, as well as speculation that the defense was banking on the idea of fear and defenseless while under attack would strike a chord with the older women. (Never mind that the idea of Zimmerman being defenseless is frankly appalling.) The alternates consisted of two men and two women, so it's not like the lawyers dismissed the idea of a sympathetic male juror entirely, they just happened to coalesce on those six.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I suppose it's only relevant because of the rarity of such a situation. For whatever reason, both the defense and the prosecution thought that these six people would be most sympathetic to their respective cases. I believe they are all mothers, and I've seen speculation that the prosecution was hoping that the loss of a child would resonate, as well as speculation that the defense was banking on the idea of fear and defenseless while under attack would strike a chord with the older women. (Never mind that the idea of Zimmerman being defenseless is frankly appalling.) The alternates consisted of two men and two women, so it's not like the lawyers dismissed the idea of a sympathetic male juror entirely, they just happened to coalesce on those six.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
jaduncan: "Legally speaking he's walking because Florida self defence reverses the burden of proof; all the defence have to do is demonstrate a prima facie case for self defence that the prosecution then have to disprove. The main opposing witness is dead, so that's a problematically high bar."
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?
Perhaps it's a useful way for the media to distract readers from the less-reported fact that none were African-American (while still suggesting legitimacy of the outcome).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
Perhaps it's a useful way for the media to distract readers from the less-reported fact that none were African-American (while still suggesting legitimacy of the outcome).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
I'm a 46 year old, black male and in light of this and so many other racially charged killings, I long for a cold, dispassionate Justice. Not to be tried in the court of public opinion or by vigilantes. Not to become a victim of mob hysteria or the target of the self-righteous.
There is no George Zimmerman; he's just an ugly cog doing its job in an ugly machine. We still know little about the guy and honestly, from the bit we have seen, it's hard to believe he has the intelligence to understand the larger implications of this trial.
I'm willing to live in a world where the law is the law and everyone has to follow the law. And meanwhile we work night and day to protect each other while we create an equitable and just set of laws.
The saddest part (to me) is that the entire situation reads like a nightmarish word problem where the only solution is death. Trayvon and Zimmerman as archetypes trapped in a pattern that everyone is familiar with and we still can't break it. Even though it is choking the life out of everything meaningful in our lives.
posted by artof.mulata at 1:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [90 favorites]
There is no George Zimmerman; he's just an ugly cog doing its job in an ugly machine. We still know little about the guy and honestly, from the bit we have seen, it's hard to believe he has the intelligence to understand the larger implications of this trial.
I'm willing to live in a world where the law is the law and everyone has to follow the law. And meanwhile we work night and day to protect each other while we create an equitable and just set of laws.
The saddest part (to me) is that the entire situation reads like a nightmarish word problem where the only solution is death. Trayvon and Zimmerman as archetypes trapped in a pattern that everyone is familiar with and we still can't break it. Even though it is choking the life out of everything meaningful in our lives.
posted by artof.mulata at 1:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [90 favorites]
Regarding shooting into the air vs. shooting someone: The underlying principle is that if you are not genuinely and reasonably in fear for your life or of grave bodily harm then you should not pull a gun on someone.
So it's not that it's better to shoot someone than to shoot into the air, but that there are acceptable circumstances to shoot someone (self defense) whereas there are no acceptable circumstances to just shoot into the air in an attempt to scare someone because that's not what guns are for.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
So it's not that it's better to shoot someone than to shoot into the air, but that there are acceptable circumstances to shoot someone (self defense) whereas there are no acceptable circumstances to just shoot into the air in an attempt to scare someone because that's not what guns are for.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
In my heart I believe that Zimmerman was guilty but please remember that he wasn't proven innocent - the prosecution simply didn't present enough information to convict him.
And at least there was a trial. In most of the cases that have been most important to America, from the Iraq War to the global financial crisis, there wasn't even that much.
Still, it's depressing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
And at least there was a trial. In most of the cases that have been most important to America, from the Iraq War to the global financial crisis, there wasn't even that much.
Still, it's depressing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?
After the initial reporting of the makeup of the jury, I always see the next 6,374 mentions of jury gender per day as sign that the media has nothing to report. So each anchor nervously repeats what the news directors think is relevant until they are forced to take a gulp of air at which time another talking head knocks them away from the camera and takes over for the next 8 hours, reporting the same jury-gender story, but this time with a slightly more furled brow.
In other words, it has relevance in a general sense, but not past the initial reporting in most cases. Maybe after the trial is over, it can be determined whether it had an impact one way or another, but juries always seem to be a fickle group to predict. So it seems that reading into it too early is not that productive.
posted by lampshade at 1:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
After the initial reporting of the makeup of the jury, I always see the next 6,374 mentions of jury gender per day as sign that the media has nothing to report. So each anchor nervously repeats what the news directors think is relevant until they are forced to take a gulp of air at which time another talking head knocks them away from the camera and takes over for the next 8 hours, reporting the same jury-gender story, but this time with a slightly more furled brow.
In other words, it has relevance in a general sense, but not past the initial reporting in most cases. Maybe after the trial is over, it can be determined whether it had an impact one way or another, but juries always seem to be a fickle group to predict. So it seems that reading into it too early is not that productive.
posted by lampshade at 1:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm a woman and one time a guy grabbed my ass on the street and I punched him out and broke his nose and he fell down and most likely hit his head on the ground. Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now?.
If you live in Florida, and especially of there are no witnesses around, the answer is "yes".
Look, America puts up with 33,000-35,000 gunshot deaths every year from person-on-person violence and suicide, and roughly 2-3 times that per your in gunshot injuries. Here are some 2010 statistics, just for starters.
We're 4th, right behind right behind South Africa, Columbia and Thailand in annual gun deaths.
Here's more stats
Just think, let's say someone in Florida (or any other Neanderthal "stand your ground" state) doesn't like a person. All they have to do is shoot them when no witnesses are around and then claim that they felt like their lives were threatened as a way to go free. A good attorney and a good story gets you off. That's insane, especially in a civilized country - or a country that purports to brag about its "values".
I've come to the conclusion that most people who passionately defend the stupid - yes, stupid - gun laws in places like Florida are just ignorant, and maybe even a little sick - sick from ginned up fear; or wannabe headhunters; or just plain wacko. Certainly, they are ignorant people - there is no other word for them.
Also, the NRA and its senior officials - and their gun manufacturing overlords - are little more than terrorists. How can they be called anything but? After all, they lobby and buy their way into legislation that permits more than 30,000 annual deaths in America from the products they peddle, every year.
Incidentally, who are the people that run the gun companies? What are their names? Where do they live? Why isn't anyone peacefully picketing their chic homes - in tony neighborhoods - carrying signs with pictures of gunshot slaughtered people (men, women, children, pets).
Guess what? the real terrorists have won! there are well over 300 million guns in this country. Sure, gun ownership is down, and 20% (roughly) of new purchases are made by repeat buyers. That's somewhat comforting, but how do you solve the problem of access, even if you closed down every gun manufacturer in America. 300million+ guns!. And now, we have an ignorant yahoo geek advocating the manufacture of 3D printed guns at home (not perfected, yet - but it's only a matter of time).
This is a really, really sick society - far more sick than the fear-ginning press and their advertising overlords lets on. May the gods help us all!!!
posted by Vibrissae at 1:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [62 favorites]
If you live in Florida, and especially of there are no witnesses around, the answer is "yes".
Look, America puts up with 33,000-35,000 gunshot deaths every year from person-on-person violence and suicide, and roughly 2-3 times that per your in gunshot injuries. Here are some 2010 statistics, just for starters.
We're 4th, right behind right behind South Africa, Columbia and Thailand in annual gun deaths.
Here's more stats
Just think, let's say someone in Florida (or any other Neanderthal "stand your ground" state) doesn't like a person. All they have to do is shoot them when no witnesses are around and then claim that they felt like their lives were threatened as a way to go free. A good attorney and a good story gets you off. That's insane, especially in a civilized country - or a country that purports to brag about its "values".
I've come to the conclusion that most people who passionately defend the stupid - yes, stupid - gun laws in places like Florida are just ignorant, and maybe even a little sick - sick from ginned up fear; or wannabe headhunters; or just plain wacko. Certainly, they are ignorant people - there is no other word for them.
Also, the NRA and its senior officials - and their gun manufacturing overlords - are little more than terrorists. How can they be called anything but? After all, they lobby and buy their way into legislation that permits more than 30,000 annual deaths in America from the products they peddle, every year.
Incidentally, who are the people that run the gun companies? What are their names? Where do they live? Why isn't anyone peacefully picketing their chic homes - in tony neighborhoods - carrying signs with pictures of gunshot slaughtered people (men, women, children, pets).
Guess what? the real terrorists have won! there are well over 300 million guns in this country. Sure, gun ownership is down, and 20% (roughly) of new purchases are made by repeat buyers. That's somewhat comforting, but how do you solve the problem of access, even if you closed down every gun manufacturer in America. 300million+ guns!. And now, we have an ignorant yahoo geek advocating the manufacture of 3D printed guns at home (not perfected, yet - but it's only a matter of time).
This is a really, really sick society - far more sick than the fear-ginning press and their advertising overlords lets on. May the gods help us all!!!
posted by Vibrissae at 1:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [62 favorites]
So it's not that it's better to shoot someone than to shoot into the air, but that there are acceptable circumstances to shoot someone (self defense) whereas there are no acceptable circumstances to just shoot into the air in an attempt to scare someone because that's not what guns are for.
This is a tricky thing though. It's come up before that the military and certain police forces are allowed to fire warning shots, but that random person A in the US isn't allowed to at all ever.
It's just too easy for me to see her reasoning here. She was prepared to use deadly force, he likely did not think she was even though she was armed. What she's communicating there is "i am fully prepared to use deadly force".
What proponents of no warning shots seem to want is a situation in which he advances in a way that she believes is a Legitimate Threat until she has no choice but to fire.
Which seems to just be a one way ticket to a world with more dead people, since those who disregard "i'm going to fire if you come any closer" type warnings will simply advance until they're fired upon.
Overall i agree with the high burden required to legally use a firearm in self defense, but i think that specific clause of the whole thing is crap. Not allowing any sort of nonverbal warning involving the weapon just doesn't completely make sense to me.
And her situation especially highlights my problem with it. An aggressive abusive guy probably has shitty opinions about women, and likely especially that woman. These seem to include "she's a wimp and won't fire if i push her".
So the question is pretty much, would you rather she just shot him if he "crossed the line" rather than fired warning shots? a lot of peoples answers seem to heavily imply "yes" even though they couch them in "but i'm not saying she should have just shot him". That rings about as hollow as "i'm not blaming the victim but.." shit.
posted by emptythought at 1:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
This is a tricky thing though. It's come up before that the military and certain police forces are allowed to fire warning shots, but that random person A in the US isn't allowed to at all ever.
It's just too easy for me to see her reasoning here. She was prepared to use deadly force, he likely did not think she was even though she was armed. What she's communicating there is "i am fully prepared to use deadly force".
What proponents of no warning shots seem to want is a situation in which he advances in a way that she believes is a Legitimate Threat until she has no choice but to fire.
Which seems to just be a one way ticket to a world with more dead people, since those who disregard "i'm going to fire if you come any closer" type warnings will simply advance until they're fired upon.
Overall i agree with the high burden required to legally use a firearm in self defense, but i think that specific clause of the whole thing is crap. Not allowing any sort of nonverbal warning involving the weapon just doesn't completely make sense to me.
And her situation especially highlights my problem with it. An aggressive abusive guy probably has shitty opinions about women, and likely especially that woman. These seem to include "she's a wimp and won't fire if i push her".
So the question is pretty much, would you rather she just shot him if he "crossed the line" rather than fired warning shots? a lot of peoples answers seem to heavily imply "yes" even though they couch them in "but i'm not saying she should have just shot him". That rings about as hollow as "i'm not blaming the victim but.." shit.
posted by emptythought at 1:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
One step closer to legalizing showdowns in the streets, I guess. Whoever won was just acting in self defense, your honor.
posted by ceribus peribus at 1:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ceribus peribus at 1:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
there are well over 300 million guns in this country.
This floored me, to put this in perspective there are 313.9 million people IN THIS COUNTRY.
There is likely more guns in this country than people, if not just a parity.
inb4 some kind of modest proposal type thing about how the government should collect all the guns and redistribute them so that every single person in the country is armed at all times.
posted by emptythought at 2:00 AM on July 14, 2013
This floored me, to put this in perspective there are 313.9 million people IN THIS COUNTRY.
There is likely more guns in this country than people, if not just a parity.
inb4 some kind of modest proposal type thing about how the government should collect all the guns and redistribute them so that every single person in the country is armed at all times.
posted by emptythought at 2:00 AM on July 14, 2013
There is no George Zimmerman; he's just an ugly cog doing its job in an ugly machine.
It's impossible to pull any one quote from this amazing Bill Moyers interview with Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson, but I find myself watching it every couple of months, so I'll try:
"MICHELLE ALEXANDER: Yes. Well, on [Obama's] election night, I was filled with hope and enthusiasm. Like much of America. And as I poured out of the election night party, along with, you know, hundreds of others folks, there in the gutter, was an African American man handcuffed behind his back, kneeling on his knees in the gutter. And he was surrounded by a number of police officers who were talking and joking, you know, completely oblivious to him, to his human existence.
And as people poured out of the party, people glanced over, briefly, took a look at him, and then went on their way with their celebrations. And I thought to myself, "What does the election of Barack Obama mean for him? Mean for him? In what way are those folks who are truly at the bottom of the well in America, in what way have they benefited?" And I think the difficult reality that we have to come to terms with is that not much has changed or will change for the folks at the bottom of the well. Until we as a nation kind of awaken. Awaken to their humanity."
posted by phaedon at 2:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [59 favorites]
It's impossible to pull any one quote from this amazing Bill Moyers interview with Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson, but I find myself watching it every couple of months, so I'll try:
"MICHELLE ALEXANDER: Yes. Well, on [Obama's] election night, I was filled with hope and enthusiasm. Like much of America. And as I poured out of the election night party, along with, you know, hundreds of others folks, there in the gutter, was an African American man handcuffed behind his back, kneeling on his knees in the gutter. And he was surrounded by a number of police officers who were talking and joking, you know, completely oblivious to him, to his human existence.
And as people poured out of the party, people glanced over, briefly, took a look at him, and then went on their way with their celebrations. And I thought to myself, "What does the election of Barack Obama mean for him? Mean for him? In what way are those folks who are truly at the bottom of the well in America, in what way have they benefited?" And I think the difficult reality that we have to come to terms with is that not much has changed or will change for the folks at the bottom of the well. Until we as a nation kind of awaken. Awaken to their humanity."
posted by phaedon at 2:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [59 favorites]
No sir. I don't like it.
posted by mazola at 2:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 2:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment deleted; guys, let's not be suggesting/promoting who should be murdered as revenge, or anything like that.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Brothers and sisters, this is not a test
I've been asked by Public Enemy leader Chuck D to make this emergency announcement:
The police in your cities, for all intents and purposes, have declared open season on black people"
.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 2:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
I've been asked by Public Enemy leader Chuck D to make this emergency announcement:
The police in your cities, for all intents and purposes, have declared open season on black people"
.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 2:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Dammit, it was a boy minding his own business walking down the street.
Jesus.
posted by droplet at 2:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Jesus.
posted by droplet at 2:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that, had the roles been reversed, Trayvon Martin would NOT have been convicted of Murder in the First Degree?
No, of course not. Because that is a deeply delusional concept.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [38 favorites]
No, of course not. Because that is a deeply delusional concept.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [38 favorites]
Jay Smooth's Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Case
posted by Blasdelb at 2:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Blasdelb at 2:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Your governments gangster so cut the crap
A war goin on so where you at?
Fight the power comes great responsiblity
Fuck the police but whos stoppin you from killin me?
posted by Ad hominem at 2:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
A war goin on so where you at?
Fight the power comes great responsiblity
Fuck the police but whos stoppin you from killin me?
posted by Ad hominem at 2:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would believe it, oneswellfoop.
I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that everyone that hates this outcome simply thinks that they know better than the rule of law and the legal system as a whole. In saying that the outcome is wrong, you also assume that the women on the jury are, what, stupid? Delusional? Wrong? How do you know better than them?
"The six women, five of them mothers, who will decide the verdict range in age from their early 30's to their 60's. Four of the women have experience with guns or relatives who own them. Two of them rescue animals. One of the jurors is either Hispanic or black."
Here's what I know. A man shot another man. An investigation was started, the DA pressed charges (granted, after some public pressure), and then was up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the charges that he was charged with.
If that doesn't happen, then the jury must find the defendant innocent. That appears to be what happened in this case. Why does everyone think that they know better than the jury? What information do they have that the jury does not? Were they there that night?
It's notable that the charge of manslaughter was introduced late in the case, presumably when the prosecution realized that they might not get the conviction on murder. It's notable, also, that the jury didn't just sit there and nod and accept things, but asked a question on clarification on the instructions regarding that specific charge of manslaughter.
I don't know what the truth is. Perhaps only George Zimmerman knows. I only know that killing people is generally wrong, and yet there are occasions when it is lawful. But to presume that the court of law is wrong, to presume that a jury of capable people were unable to find the correct judgment - I think that presumes a lot. I think it indicates a problematic mistrust in a judicial system that seems to have worked exactly as it would work in any other homicide case.
posted by Han Tzu at 2:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that everyone that hates this outcome simply thinks that they know better than the rule of law and the legal system as a whole. In saying that the outcome is wrong, you also assume that the women on the jury are, what, stupid? Delusional? Wrong? How do you know better than them?
"The six women, five of them mothers, who will decide the verdict range in age from their early 30's to their 60's. Four of the women have experience with guns or relatives who own them. Two of them rescue animals. One of the jurors is either Hispanic or black."
Here's what I know. A man shot another man. An investigation was started, the DA pressed charges (granted, after some public pressure), and then was up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the charges that he was charged with.
If that doesn't happen, then the jury must find the defendant innocent. That appears to be what happened in this case. Why does everyone think that they know better than the jury? What information do they have that the jury does not? Were they there that night?
It's notable that the charge of manslaughter was introduced late in the case, presumably when the prosecution realized that they might not get the conviction on murder. It's notable, also, that the jury didn't just sit there and nod and accept things, but asked a question on clarification on the instructions regarding that specific charge of manslaughter.
I don't know what the truth is. Perhaps only George Zimmerman knows. I only know that killing people is generally wrong, and yet there are occasions when it is lawful. But to presume that the court of law is wrong, to presume that a jury of capable people were unable to find the correct judgment - I think that presumes a lot. I think it indicates a problematic mistrust in a judicial system that seems to have worked exactly as it would work in any other homicide case.
posted by Han Tzu at 2:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Han Tzu: "I think that presumes a lot. I think it indicates a problematic mistrust in a judicial system that seems to have worked exactly as it would work in any other homicide case."
Well, yeah, it's been doing a pretty good job of keeping down the already marginalized.
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Well, yeah, it's been doing a pretty good job of keeping down the already marginalized.
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Han Tzu, there are unjust laws...
posted by artof.mulata at 2:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by artof.mulata at 2:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Prosecutorial incompetence seems to have been a factor.
Why did the prosecution decide to introduce in its own case the several audio and video statements made by George Zimmerman to the police after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin? Clearly, these statements could not have been admitted by the defense. The statements are hearsay and under one of the most firmly established rules of evidence, are not admissible if offered by the defense...Thus, in allowing Zimmerman's statements to be heard by the jury, and his demeanor seen by the jury, without being able to confront and cross-examine him in court, the prosecution made its biggest mistake in the trial.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Why did the prosecution decide to introduce in its own case the several audio and video statements made by George Zimmerman to the police after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin? Clearly, these statements could not have been admitted by the defense. The statements are hearsay and under one of the most firmly established rules of evidence, are not admissible if offered by the defense...Thus, in allowing Zimmerman's statements to be heard by the jury, and his demeanor seen by the jury, without being able to confront and cross-examine him in court, the prosecution made its biggest mistake in the trial.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
I think quite a few people are saying that the law is what's wrong, not necessarily the process. Specifically, the "Stand-Your-Ground" law that enables the use of force in self defense without compelling retreat first. Zimmerman stalked Martin, then initiated the confrontation that (he claims) resulted in a fight for his life - but none of the reasons why the confrontation happened seem to matter. All that mattered in the end was that a confrontation occurred, and he was defending himself.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Kevin Street at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Personally I think Zimmerman was at fault for provocation leading to manslaughter. But I also think that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence - you've got 1 911 call and zimmermans side if the story. That's it. No other evidence is admissible since it would be hearsay or speculation. For how screwed up people think the justice system is (and rightly so) I think there's not much you can do to convict a guy with zero evidence.
If it's any consolation to the people who are angry in this thread the man has been basically been branded an outcast on national news for 6 weeks. He'll have to change his name and start over and his chances if living a normal life are now basically over. I doubt any employer will ever want to hire him. So there you go there's some vengeance I guess.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
If it's any consolation to the people who are angry in this thread the man has been basically been branded an outcast on national news for 6 weeks. He'll have to change his name and start over and his chances if living a normal life are now basically over. I doubt any employer will ever want to hire him. So there you go there's some vengeance I guess.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 2:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
In saying that the outcome is wrong, you also assume that the women on the jury are, what, stupid? Delusional? Wrong?
Just wrong. I personally feel the state met the burden of proof necessary for the manslaughter charge.
It's notable that the charge of manslaughter was introduced late in the case.
That is not accurate.
But to presume that the court of law is wrong, to presume that a jury of capable people were unable to find the correct judgment - I think that presumes a lot
Juries do get cases wrong sometimes, you don't need to have a total lack of respect for the system to feel this is one of those times. Though,
I think it indicates a problematic mistrust in a judicial system
There are some very good reasons to mistrust this justice system, especially as it regards African Americans who are treated terribly by it at every level. What are they supposed to do about that? Vote? In Florida nearly 25% of African Americans are disenfranchised as felons because of that same system. Mistrusting it is pretty sensible.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
Just wrong. I personally feel the state met the burden of proof necessary for the manslaughter charge.
It's notable that the charge of manslaughter was introduced late in the case.
That is not accurate.
But to presume that the court of law is wrong, to presume that a jury of capable people were unable to find the correct judgment - I think that presumes a lot
Juries do get cases wrong sometimes, you don't need to have a total lack of respect for the system to feel this is one of those times. Though,
I think it indicates a problematic mistrust in a judicial system
There are some very good reasons to mistrust this justice system, especially as it regards African Americans who are treated terribly by it at every level. What are they supposed to do about that? Vote? In Florida nearly 25% of African Americans are disenfranchised as felons because of that same system. Mistrusting it is pretty sensible.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
there is irony in the zimmerman trial. it might not have been murder. it might not have been manslaughter. these are legal technicalities. but, the stand yr ground laws was born out of centuries of white men killing black boys. the murder and manslaughter laws were constructed in an environment that were intended to police black bodies. there might be no legal justice, because in the american south, the history of policing black bodies, results in white men killing black boys. 50 years ago, there wouldn't have been a trial. and that is progress.
posted by PinkMoose at 3:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by PinkMoose at 3:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
And you're telling me a jury in Florida would acquit a black man who shot a white man if there are no witnesses and he claims self-defense? How naive can you get?
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
ishrinkmajeans: "If it's any consolation to the people who are angry in this thread the man has been basically been branded an outcast on national news for 6 weeks. He'll have to change his name and start over and his chances if living a normal life are now basically over. I doubt any employer will ever want to hire him. So there you go there's some vengeance I guess."
Not really-- he can just set up another donation site and get tens of thousands in donations from other racists around the country just like last time.
posted by ShawnStruck at 3:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [39 favorites]
Not really-- he can just set up another donation site and get tens of thousands in donations from other racists around the country just like last time.
posted by ShawnStruck at 3:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [39 favorites]
There were witnesses and they seemed to be conflicting, oneswellfoop, or we wouldn't be here.
posted by Han Tzu at 3:03 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Han Tzu at 3:03 AM on July 14, 2013
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
Absolutely she would have. If she'd killed him she'd likely never even have been charged. Eliminate the witnesses and you're better off.
I'm a woman and one time a guy grabbed my ass on the street and I punched him out and broke his nose and he fell down and most likely hit his head on the ground. Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now? Because I'm starting to wonder.
Or for you to shoot him. As long as there's no witnesses, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it could not have been self defence. Historically, self defence has been an affirmative defence with a reversed burden of proof. Precisely for this reason, it makes killing people much easier to get away with.
posted by atrazine at 3:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Absolutely she would have. If she'd killed him she'd likely never even have been charged. Eliminate the witnesses and you're better off.
I'm a woman and one time a guy grabbed my ass on the street and I punched him out and broke his nose and he fell down and most likely hit his head on the ground. Is it OK for him to respond by shooting me now? Because I'm starting to wonder.
Or for you to shoot him. As long as there's no witnesses, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it could not have been self defence. Historically, self defence has been an affirmative defence with a reversed burden of proof. Precisely for this reason, it makes killing people much easier to get away with.
posted by atrazine at 3:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
It seems very USA that the whole thing is played out as a show trial - really whatever the outcome. Surely there are other issues in this case (e.g. the fact that Zimmerman was able to walk away without issue after having killed a man in questionable circumstances, and the system that allows this) that could be concentrated on. But no, let's have a media circus instead. See also, all mass shooting incidents.
posted by iotic at 3:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by iotic at 3:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right now on reddit: "Iama close relative of George Zimmerman. I was with George directly before the shooting, and with his wife when he called and told us what had happened. AMA"
posted by artof.mulata at 3:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by artof.mulata at 3:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Absolutely she would have. If she'd killed him she'd likely never even have been charged. Eliminate the witnesses and you're better off.
Well with the important caveat that you need a good attorney.
posted by empath at 3:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well with the important caveat that you need a good attorney.
posted by empath at 3:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is a tragic case. It's a tragedy when any young life ends like this. What saddens me though is that there's so little perspective in this discussion.
Did you know that despite the fact that African Americans make up about 12-13% of the US population (see Census 2010 data), approximately 50% of murder victims are African American males (see FBI data here)?
The truth of the matter is that young men like Trayvon Martin are far more likely to be killed than their white or Hispanic peers. Furthermore, they are almost always killed by other African Americans- about 87% of the time if my math is right (see FBI data here). Furthermore, about 3/4 of the time, these homicides involve an acquaintance, friend, or family.
Total things up, and approximately 10,000 African American males have been murdered since this case began in February 2012.
For a concise summary of data involving homicide, see this report.
Put it together and you see that what happened to Trayvon Martin is certainly tragic, but it was a rare occurrence when you look at the statistics and consider the bigger picture.
There's an epidemic of massively disproportionate violence out there happening between African Americans, usually acquaintances... especially in certain violent states... and we aren't talking about it despite the fact that it is claiming thousands of lives every year. Why can't our media focus on this rampant problem? Why are most people totally unaware of it? Why aren't we interested in discussing it as a society... or even here, for that matter?
posted by Old Man McKay at 3:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Did you know that despite the fact that African Americans make up about 12-13% of the US population (see Census 2010 data), approximately 50% of murder victims are African American males (see FBI data here)?
The truth of the matter is that young men like Trayvon Martin are far more likely to be killed than their white or Hispanic peers. Furthermore, they are almost always killed by other African Americans- about 87% of the time if my math is right (see FBI data here). Furthermore, about 3/4 of the time, these homicides involve an acquaintance, friend, or family.
Total things up, and approximately 10,000 African American males have been murdered since this case began in February 2012.
For a concise summary of data involving homicide, see this report.
Put it together and you see that what happened to Trayvon Martin is certainly tragic, but it was a rare occurrence when you look at the statistics and consider the bigger picture.
There's an epidemic of massively disproportionate violence out there happening between African Americans, usually acquaintances... especially in certain violent states... and we aren't talking about it despite the fact that it is claiming thousands of lives every year. Why can't our media focus on this rampant problem? Why are most people totally unaware of it? Why aren't we interested in discussing it as a society... or even here, for that matter?
posted by Old Man McKay at 3:13 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
"He'll have to change his name and start over..."
So if you come across a smug looking fuck calling himself George Dylan, that'll probably be him.
posted by Prince Lazy I at 3:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
So if you come across a smug looking fuck calling himself George Dylan, that'll probably be him.
posted by Prince Lazy I at 3:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
From the far side of the Atlantic, what seems to have happened here can be summed up in 12 words:
George Zimmerman was given a fair trial—by a corrupt legal system.
The solution is a root-and-branch replacement of Florida's—and quote possibly the USA's—entire legal system: encompassing not just laws, but law enforcement agencies, courts, and prosecutors.
Preferably with a system that makes it impossible to hide, or to defend, racism-motivated violence.
(Before you complain that this is impossible I'd like to note that something like this has been/is being attempted in Northern Ireland, where sectarianism on the order of serious racial discrimination was the order of the day until the 1990s.)
posted by cstross at 3:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [44 favorites]
George Zimmerman was given a fair trial—by a corrupt legal system.
The solution is a root-and-branch replacement of Florida's—and quote possibly the USA's—entire legal system: encompassing not just laws, but law enforcement agencies, courts, and prosecutors.
Preferably with a system that makes it impossible to hide, or to defend, racism-motivated violence.
(Before you complain that this is impossible I'd like to note that something like this has been/is being attempted in Northern Ireland, where sectarianism on the order of serious racial discrimination was the order of the day until the 1990s.)
posted by cstross at 3:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [44 favorites]
I'm really interested in these Stand Your Ground laws and what we can do about them.
Also, I found this blog post brief but really helpful: Adulting – Semi-constructive things to do with your anguish.
According to her post, the following states have some form of Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrines: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
I have been unable to find information about California so far, but maybe somebody can help with this (and other states). What can we do? (perhaps some options for people currently not residing in the US, too please)
Additionally, press statement from the Southern Poverty Law center on the verdict.
posted by iamkimiam at 3:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Also, I found this blog post brief but really helpful: Adulting – Semi-constructive things to do with your anguish.
According to her post, the following states have some form of Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrines: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
I have been unable to find information about California so far, but maybe somebody can help with this (and other states). What can we do? (perhaps some options for people currently not residing in the US, too please)
Additionally, press statement from the Southern Poverty Law center on the verdict.
posted by iamkimiam at 3:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
If you are defending this based solely on Florida's justice system you are missing the forest for the trees. And the forest is full of strange fruit.
posted by chaz at 3:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
posted by chaz at 3:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
To my mind, it's worth distinguishing between stand your ground laws that apply in public places and those that only apply to the home (Castle doctrine). Expecting a person to retreat in a public place makes sense to me; expecting them to do so in their homes does not.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 3:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 3:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Right now on reddit: "Iama close relative of George Zimmerman. I was with George directly before the shooting, and with his wife when he called and told us what had happened. AMA"
Last edit: I've made a terrible mistake.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Last edit: I've made a terrible mistake.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's always funny to see people bickering about "stand your ground laws" in the Zimmerman case. Because in doing so they instantly identify themselves as utterly clueless.
Stand your ground was _no_ factor in the case. The defense waived the pre-trial hearing that it could have had about stand your ground. Because they knew stand your ground didn't apply.
The case was decided simply on the normal, everyday self-defense theory.
Go, read the jury instructions. They lay out the relevant law. They even include a sentence that no law not addressed in the jury instructions is pertinent to the case. Now realize, stand your ground is not mentioned anywhere.
posted by 2uo at 3:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Stand your ground was _no_ factor in the case. The defense waived the pre-trial hearing that it could have had about stand your ground. Because they knew stand your ground didn't apply.
The case was decided simply on the normal, everyday self-defense theory.
Go, read the jury instructions. They lay out the relevant law. They even include a sentence that no law not addressed in the jury instructions is pertinent to the case. Now realize, stand your ground is not mentioned anywhere.
posted by 2uo at 3:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Right now on reddit: "Iama close relative of George Zimmerman. I was with George directly before the shooting, and with his wife when he called and told us what had happened. AMA"
This relative is ad that the light has gone from George's eyes and he's no longer as jovial as he used to be. Also, there is a difference between shooting someone while feeling slightly threatened, and shooting someone while getting the crap beat out of you by someone you don't know and George is very sad he had to shoot Trayvon, but he knows he can't change the past and anyway this case was obviously trumped up by the media, who need a bogeyman, even though worse things happen between black people everyday and the black community really needs to talk about that because George has been a shut-in and depressed and its just terrible how for the rest of his life he'll have to always be hiding.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
This relative is ad that the light has gone from George's eyes and he's no longer as jovial as he used to be. Also, there is a difference between shooting someone while feeling slightly threatened, and shooting someone while getting the crap beat out of you by someone you don't know and George is very sad he had to shoot Trayvon, but he knows he can't change the past and anyway this case was obviously trumped up by the media, who need a bogeyman, even though worse things happen between black people everyday and the black community really needs to talk about that because George has been a shut-in and depressed and its just terrible how for the rest of his life he'll have to always be hiding.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Thanks for reading that crap so we don't have to Brandon. Blech.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
Last edit: I've made a terrible mistake.
Going online to make jokes about the racial tensions the night of the verdict? Yeah, good call dude.
I also find it interesting that he notes Zimmerman had a gun in part because people were being jumped in the neighborhood. Don't recall that being mentioned before, just the burglaries. They had said he bought the gun because of an aggressive dog owned by a neighbor.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Going online to make jokes about the racial tensions the night of the verdict? Yeah, good call dude.
I also find it interesting that he notes Zimmerman had a gun in part because people were being jumped in the neighborhood. Don't recall that being mentioned before, just the burglaries. They had said he bought the gun because of an aggressive dog owned by a neighbor.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Pretty sure most of that has been in the public record for about 2 years now, Drinky Die, via records of all Zimmerman's calls to the police in that area in the months before the shooting.
posted by ShutterBun at 3:59 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by ShutterBun at 3:59 AM on July 14, 2013
I plan to boycott Florida and its products, for a start.
Yet another lynching goes unpunished.
posted by spitbull at 4:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yet another lynching goes unpunished.
posted by spitbull at 4:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, totally the same as a lynching. /hamburger
posted by ShutterBun at 4:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by ShutterBun at 4:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
three-fifths, that's all we are.
...at most
posted by Eideteker at 4:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
...at most
posted by Eideteker at 4:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
If you're going to claim that the person you shot did something to activate your right to self-defence, it will indeed be easier to walk if there is no opposing witness to say they did not (assuming no witnesses).
This naturally leads to a certain tendency to bring the other person's character into the trial; some of the battle is how likely that person was to undertake the actions you claim, and how reasonable it was to believe they were going to severely harm you.
posted by jaduncan at 4:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you're going to claim that the person you shot did something to activate your right to self-defence, it will indeed be easier to walk if there is no opposing witness to say they did not (assuming no witnesses).
This naturally leads to a certain tendency to bring the other person's character into the trial; some of the battle is how likely that person was to undertake the actions you claim, and how reasonable it was to believe they were going to severely harm you.
posted by jaduncan at 4:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I plan to boycott Florida and its products, for a start.
Florida isn't the only state that has a legally-mandated problem with minorities, but it definitely is up there on the list. Why the Department of Justice is not doing its job and charging members of Florida's government as accessories to violent hate crimes is an ongoing matter of amazement, to me.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Florida isn't the only state that has a legally-mandated problem with minorities, but it definitely is up there on the list. Why the Department of Justice is not doing its job and charging members of Florida's government as accessories to violent hate crimes is an ongoing matter of amazement, to me.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
NAACP website is down at the moment. Anyone know what that's about? And when it happened? Or is it just that so many people are trying to sign the petition?
posted by Stewriffic at 4:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Stewriffic at 4:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right now on reddit: "Iama close relative of George Zimmerman.
Where on this computer is the 'Reach Through The Internet To Give Someone A Slap Upside The Head' button? Is it under the Bad Idea Prevention panel? I can't find anything! Stupid Windows 8!
Last edit: I've made a terrible mistake.
Ah. Found it.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Where on this computer is the 'Reach Through The Internet To Give Someone A Slap Upside The Head' button? Is it under the Bad Idea Prevention panel? I can't find anything! Stupid Windows 8!
Last edit: I've made a terrible mistake.
Ah. Found it.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
posted by surplus at 4:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by surplus at 4:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
This brings back something for me: a long time ago, I lived in a house next door to a place there was a murder. One of my housemates was a young black woman. She saw most of the murder - not the critical moment, but she saw the quarrel through a window and saw the victim run out fatally stabbed to die on the street in the rain. The cops came, and then they left for a while, and they left the body out there, uncovered, in the rain for 14 hours until my housemate called the mayor's office. (I was out of town when all this happened). My street was mostly black and latin@ at the time. She was telling me about it later and saying that it was so terrible to treat the body like that, and so terrible to leave it where the little kids on the block had to see it. And that was the first time that I realized - me a pretty sheltered, clueless white kid - the utter, entrenched, poisonous disregard for black humans that is entrenched in almost every US institution and that this disregard is invisible and unimportant to most white people.
If this case weren't taking place in a white supremacist society (well, it probably wouldn't have happened except in a white supremacist society) then it would just be a terrible tragedy. As it stands, it's one more in a long list of incidents that demonstrate that the system and the white folks who enable it....just don't even care about the lives of black people. That you can shoot someone down like a dog (and that's what happened to Rekia Boyd, and Amadou Diallo and two different black guys that friends of mine actually witnessed get shot by cops, as I've recounted elsewhere here, and too many other people) and whoa, nobody gets punished and lots of people line up to smear the name of the victim. (I would care a lot more about 'oh maybe Trayvon Martin was dodgy in some way' except that everyone says that every fucking time - he could have been in choirboy robes toting a basket of kittens on his way to visit at the old folks' home and people would still say it.)
I mean, this is the message that white-centric society is sending - that the very lives of black men and women aren't important. This is what just gets me. On a different axis, I know what it's like to grow up absolutely certain that you are hated and reviled by mainstream society (being fat and queer and trans) and I know how it erodes your sense of well-being and chews away at you even when you're around friends - but I have never felt that someone could just kill me out of the blue (as happened to Rekia Boyd, just out of the blue - not even in the murky circumstances of Martin's death) and get away with it. No one should have to live that way, but no one wants to look at that fact. It's so terrible and cruel that it's almost incomprehensible to me, it's like trying to imagine infinity.
Again, if this were a totally isolated and random case, it would just be tragic. But it's the same thing that happens over and over and over, and by happy coincidence, virtually every single time there are no consequences (or trivial, insulting consequences, as with Oscar Grant) for the killer. By happy coincidence, society always decides that "in this case", it's justified to kill the unarmed African-American.
posted by Frowner at 4:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [136 favorites]
If this case weren't taking place in a white supremacist society (well, it probably wouldn't have happened except in a white supremacist society) then it would just be a terrible tragedy. As it stands, it's one more in a long list of incidents that demonstrate that the system and the white folks who enable it....just don't even care about the lives of black people. That you can shoot someone down like a dog (and that's what happened to Rekia Boyd, and Amadou Diallo and two different black guys that friends of mine actually witnessed get shot by cops, as I've recounted elsewhere here, and too many other people) and whoa, nobody gets punished and lots of people line up to smear the name of the victim. (I would care a lot more about 'oh maybe Trayvon Martin was dodgy in some way' except that everyone says that every fucking time - he could have been in choirboy robes toting a basket of kittens on his way to visit at the old folks' home and people would still say it.)
I mean, this is the message that white-centric society is sending - that the very lives of black men and women aren't important. This is what just gets me. On a different axis, I know what it's like to grow up absolutely certain that you are hated and reviled by mainstream society (being fat and queer and trans) and I know how it erodes your sense of well-being and chews away at you even when you're around friends - but I have never felt that someone could just kill me out of the blue (as happened to Rekia Boyd, just out of the blue - not even in the murky circumstances of Martin's death) and get away with it. No one should have to live that way, but no one wants to look at that fact. It's so terrible and cruel that it's almost incomprehensible to me, it's like trying to imagine infinity.
Again, if this were a totally isolated and random case, it would just be tragic. But it's the same thing that happens over and over and over, and by happy coincidence, virtually every single time there are no consequences (or trivial, insulting consequences, as with Oscar Grant) for the killer. By happy coincidence, society always decides that "in this case", it's justified to kill the unarmed African-American.
posted by Frowner at 4:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [136 favorites]
There was a young black kid on Twitter last night who broke my heart when he tweeted, "How many times you gotta tell us we ain't worth shit? We get the message."
Seriously, this is just all kinds of fucked up.
posted by Kitteh at 4:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [88 favorites]
Seriously, this is just all kinds of fucked up.
posted by Kitteh at 4:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [88 favorites]
I don't have much to add to this except to say that as someone who was born, grew up, was educated and currently still lives in Florida I'm so disgusted and ashamed that I don't really know what to say. I knew Zimmerman would be aquitted and yet I was still shocked when it happened. The state has been completely taken over by the right-wing crazies and the corporate oligarchs and is beyond repair. I don't see anything improving in my lifetime no matter what I and other progressives do and so my only option is to leave. I'm done, I just can't care about this place anymore.
posted by photoslob at 4:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by photoslob at 4:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
Apples and non-apples. There is a LOT more to the Alexander case that what fits in a Facebook headline, to the extent that bringing it up here as some kind of comparison point ought to be pretty embarrassing. Far from being any sort of "heat of the moment" or "imminent threat" situation, that case involved a verbal argument (with children present) culminating in Alexander going to her car, retrieving a gun, and going back inside to shoot at* her husband, with their children nearby. Had he been hit, she would have been facing the electric chair, no doubt. Totally, totally different. No reason to bring it up here as a comparison at all.
* It's of course impossible to determine what (or whom, if anything) she was aiming at, but the shots were fired in the direction of her husband & their kids, who fled the scene together.
posted by ShutterBun at 4:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Apples and non-apples. There is a LOT more to the Alexander case that what fits in a Facebook headline, to the extent that bringing it up here as some kind of comparison point ought to be pretty embarrassing. Far from being any sort of "heat of the moment" or "imminent threat" situation, that case involved a verbal argument (with children present) culminating in Alexander going to her car, retrieving a gun, and going back inside to shoot at* her husband, with their children nearby. Had he been hit, she would have been facing the electric chair, no doubt. Totally, totally different. No reason to bring it up here as a comparison at all.
* It's of course impossible to determine what (or whom, if anything) she was aiming at, but the shots were fired in the direction of her husband & their kids, who fled the scene together.
posted by ShutterBun at 4:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
This is horrendous. I remember when this came in the news, with people using Skittles to symbolize support for Travyon Martin. I'm really, truly sorry to hear about this verdict.
posted by ipsative at 4:49 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by ipsative at 4:49 AM on July 14, 2013
x-post from my Facebook
The Zimmerman verdict is America buying into the idea that anyone darker than a cup of coffee with cream in it is a threat. (Doubly so if you happen to be Muslim, triply so if you're Sikh. But I digress...)
I'm mad at that, but maybe I'll start enjoying the the space I get when people cross the street to avoid me. Maybe I'll stop feeling worried when my fists ball up when someone walks up behind me. Maybe I'll take extra relish in someone telling me "your English is real good, son!" or "tell your mother she's beautiful" (as if she doesn't speak English herself). [1]
But no. That isn't what's going to happen, because as a young American who *is* darker than a macchiato [2], who wears "the wrong things" and listens to "the wrong music" I "deserve" what happens to me and that if I do try to stand my own ground, I'm liable to be put beneath it. And furthermore, because law is built upon precedent, this will probably happen again in an even more mundane context and the shooter will get off...
Even without a word from the president, because he's too busy politickin' [3] and has his hands tied, because even in America today, you can't both be black and the President. You have to choose one or the other. He can "only imagine" [4] because he can't really do anything about it.
[1] = All things that have happened.
[2] = Want.
[3] = "...that's that Sarah Palin." Definitely an example of "the wrong music".
Bonus article: Cord Jefferson absolutely nails it in his piece, "The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men What We Already Knew".
posted by raihan_ at 4:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
The Zimmerman verdict is America buying into the idea that anyone darker than a cup of coffee with cream in it is a threat. (Doubly so if you happen to be Muslim, triply so if you're Sikh. But I digress...)
I'm mad at that, but maybe I'll start enjoying the the space I get when people cross the street to avoid me. Maybe I'll stop feeling worried when my fists ball up when someone walks up behind me. Maybe I'll take extra relish in someone telling me "your English is real good, son!" or "tell your mother she's beautiful" (as if she doesn't speak English herself). [1]
But no. That isn't what's going to happen, because as a young American who *is* darker than a macchiato [2], who wears "the wrong things" and listens to "the wrong music" I "deserve" what happens to me and that if I do try to stand my own ground, I'm liable to be put beneath it. And furthermore, because law is built upon precedent, this will probably happen again in an even more mundane context and the shooter will get off...
Even without a word from the president, because he's too busy politickin' [3] and has his hands tied, because even in America today, you can't both be black and the President. You have to choose one or the other. He can "only imagine" [4] because he can't really do anything about it.
[1] = All things that have happened.
[2] = Want.
[3] = "...that's that Sarah Palin." Definitely an example of "the wrong music".
Bonus article: Cord Jefferson absolutely nails it in his piece, "The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men What We Already Knew".
posted by raihan_ at 4:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
I'm done, I just can't care about this place anymore.
Granted, this is on top of all the other bullshit that happens in Florida, but...you're going to let 6 people convince you an entire state is no good?
I live in California, where "we" let O.J. off the hook, along with the Rodney King assault squad. Has our state been overrun by right-wing wackos? (eh, maybe. But I'm not ready to leave just yet.)
The fact of the matter is that (in San Franciso, California, anyway) 70% of all murder jury trials end in acquittal, hung juries, or mixed verdicts. Even the public defender's office has about a 50% batting average. And that's really just on cases where the D.A. wouldn't (or couldn't) make deals. Imagine their average on a situation like this, which was pushed forward for reasons other than simply "a strong evidentiary case."
The bottom line is that it's just plain difficult to get a murder conviction fair & square. It's OK to be "not surprised" and yet disappointed with the outcome. But I think what was really missing from the case was not "a competent, impartial jury," but rather "a more clear-cut case." As much as people want this all to boil down to "Trayvon Martin is dead, and he shouldn't be, so someone's got to pay," the truth is that there is indeed more to it than that, legally speaking. There were no tricks, no technicalities, no loopholes employed by the defense, (that I know of) it was simply the legal standard of "guilty (under these circumstances) beyond a reasonable doubt" that could no be overcome. Again, looking at the numbers above, it's clearly not the exception.
posted by ShutterBun at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Granted, this is on top of all the other bullshit that happens in Florida, but...you're going to let 6 people convince you an entire state is no good?
I live in California, where "we" let O.J. off the hook, along with the Rodney King assault squad. Has our state been overrun by right-wing wackos? (eh, maybe. But I'm not ready to leave just yet.)
The fact of the matter is that (in San Franciso, California, anyway) 70% of all murder jury trials end in acquittal, hung juries, or mixed verdicts. Even the public defender's office has about a 50% batting average. And that's really just on cases where the D.A. wouldn't (or couldn't) make deals. Imagine their average on a situation like this, which was pushed forward for reasons other than simply "a strong evidentiary case."
The bottom line is that it's just plain difficult to get a murder conviction fair & square. It's OK to be "not surprised" and yet disappointed with the outcome. But I think what was really missing from the case was not "a competent, impartial jury," but rather "a more clear-cut case." As much as people want this all to boil down to "Trayvon Martin is dead, and he shouldn't be, so someone's got to pay," the truth is that there is indeed more to it than that, legally speaking. There were no tricks, no technicalities, no loopholes employed by the defense, (that I know of) it was simply the legal standard of "guilty (under these circumstances) beyond a reasonable doubt" that could no be overcome. Again, looking at the numbers above, it's clearly not the exception.
posted by ShutterBun at 4:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
This is a total failure of justice - not just in the verdict but in the state and environment that let this happen. If the young man he killed were white, Zimmerman would be considered a Latino murderer and probably already convicted. Black life doesn't matter to this country.
posted by graymouser at 4:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 4:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
To me it's simple. If you have to get out of your car to follow someone, it's no longer "your ground" you're standing on.
posted by tommasz at 5:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [43 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 5:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [43 favorites]
God, Trayvon's parents. I can't imagine going forward with the rest of my life after something like that; I would be consumed with hate.
posted by angrycat at 5:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 5:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
To expand on my comment from the last thread:
To everybody telling us that the court works the way it should have, you're missing the issue. The courts were the problem. From the the unjust gun and self-defense laws through the way the prosecution handled the case, it was a brilliant examination of how farcical the US "justice" system can be when it comes to the social and legal problems with large segments of the population. Remember, this happened in a state where there was a good chance that Martin would have been denied his right to vote due to an ever more Byzantine set of roadblocks publicly stated to be about voter fraud (that didn't exist) but privately set up to prevent people that look like him from voting. His entire life was going to be unjust, and being IDed as a violent drug user by a paranoid gun owner being told about the specter of black bucks running amok by other paranoid gun owners was part of that.
In the end, this wasn't a trial of George Zimmerman, this was a trial of Trayvon Martin. From beginning to end, the person who received the most scrutiny for his behavior, even when it was entirely unrelated to the incident at hand, was the kid with Skittles and a soft drink walking home casually in the rain, not the guy looking for "assholes" and "fucking punks" who had armed himself with a gun and got out of his truck to chase the kid down.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [69 favorites]
To everybody telling us that the court works the way it should have, you're missing the issue. The courts were the problem. From the the unjust gun and self-defense laws through the way the prosecution handled the case, it was a brilliant examination of how farcical the US "justice" system can be when it comes to the social and legal problems with large segments of the population. Remember, this happened in a state where there was a good chance that Martin would have been denied his right to vote due to an ever more Byzantine set of roadblocks publicly stated to be about voter fraud (that didn't exist) but privately set up to prevent people that look like him from voting. His entire life was going to be unjust, and being IDed as a violent drug user by a paranoid gun owner being told about the specter of black bucks running amok by other paranoid gun owners was part of that.
In the end, this wasn't a trial of George Zimmerman, this was a trial of Trayvon Martin. From beginning to end, the person who received the most scrutiny for his behavior, even when it was entirely unrelated to the incident at hand, was the kid with Skittles and a soft drink walking home casually in the rain, not the guy looking for "assholes" and "fucking punks" who had armed himself with a gun and got out of his truck to chase the kid down.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [69 favorites]
So... pretending, for a moment, that the guy isn't an avowed racist and the whole thing isn't the latest national disgrace. Legally speaking, what prevents ANY person who shoots and kills another person, in the absence of witnesses, from claiming they did it in self defense and getting off? Surely I can't just kill somebody and say, "Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, self defense, seeya."
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 5:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I find myself looking at the situation as a programming decision tree (I'm a programmer, go figure). To get to the result that ends with Trayvon Martin dead of a gunshot wound to the chest, you have to have consistently made poor choices, many of which require racist motivations. Any deviation from stupid and/or racist, and Travon lives.
When someone has to die because you're a racist coward, you're a murderer. That seems simple enough to me.
posted by Mooski at 5:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
When someone has to die because you're a racist coward, you're a murderer. That seems simple enough to me.
posted by Mooski at 5:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
The problem is that the law is bad.
That's true, but let's not forget that there is still discretion in its application. There is more than one wrong, here.
posted by likeatoaster at 5:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
That's true, but let's not forget that there is still discretion in its application. There is more than one wrong, here.
posted by likeatoaster at 5:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Blazecock Pileon: "Others point out that this verdict depended on the unique nature of the law in Florida.
Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots"
Not even a close analogy. This woman left the house and came back with a gun. That is NOT standing your ground. Furthermore the husband said it was not a warning shot that she simply missed. Considering the location of the bullet holes it was not clear that it was a warning shot.
graymouser: "This is a total failure of justice - not just in the verdict but in the state and environment that let this happen. If the young man he killed were white, Zimmerman would be considered a Latino murderer and probably already convicted. Black life doesn't matter to this country."
If Mr Martin was white, you are right that Mr Zimmerman would be recognized as Latino. We wouldn't have had the media deliberately editing comments to make Zimmerman seem like a racist. We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in. There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested. There would been no games played with showing a picture of the victim from several years ago, no manipulation by calling the victim by his first name and the killer by his last, none of the bs with comments like "trayvon is African-American. Zimmerman considers himself Latino".
In the end you have 2 people. The killer claims self defense. The evidence and eyewitnesses seemed to support this claim or at the very least insufficient evidence was found to prove it wasn't. The skin colors didn't change those facts.
What we have here is NOT a failure of the justice system. Amazingly it worked just as it should - considering the evidence, the prosecutors actions, and the charge presented. Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent.
At the most I would say it is a failure of the political system and our ability to keep politics separate from the justice system. Without the political pressure Zimmerman would not have been charged with Murder. He would have been charged with Manslaughter. Manslaughter would have been far easier to prove and would have had a much greater chance of a success. Yes, the judge allowed the last minute change in the jury's instructions so they could consider manslaughter but that just seemed like a desperate attempt by a prosecutor who recognized the case for murder wasn't proven.
posted by 2manyusernames at 5:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots"
Not even a close analogy. This woman left the house and came back with a gun. That is NOT standing your ground. Furthermore the husband said it was not a warning shot that she simply missed. Considering the location of the bullet holes it was not clear that it was a warning shot.
graymouser: "This is a total failure of justice - not just in the verdict but in the state and environment that let this happen. If the young man he killed were white, Zimmerman would be considered a Latino murderer and probably already convicted. Black life doesn't matter to this country."
If Mr Martin was white, you are right that Mr Zimmerman would be recognized as Latino. We wouldn't have had the media deliberately editing comments to make Zimmerman seem like a racist. We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in. There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested. There would been no games played with showing a picture of the victim from several years ago, no manipulation by calling the victim by his first name and the killer by his last, none of the bs with comments like "trayvon is African-American. Zimmerman considers himself Latino".
In the end you have 2 people. The killer claims self defense. The evidence and eyewitnesses seemed to support this claim or at the very least insufficient evidence was found to prove it wasn't. The skin colors didn't change those facts.
What we have here is NOT a failure of the justice system. Amazingly it worked just as it should - considering the evidence, the prosecutors actions, and the charge presented. Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent.
At the most I would say it is a failure of the political system and our ability to keep politics separate from the justice system. Without the political pressure Zimmerman would not have been charged with Murder. He would have been charged with Manslaughter. Manslaughter would have been far easier to prove and would have had a much greater chance of a success. Yes, the judge allowed the last minute change in the jury's instructions so they could consider manslaughter but that just seemed like a desperate attempt by a prosecutor who recognized the case for murder wasn't proven.
posted by 2manyusernames at 5:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Citizen juries are a ridiculous concept and should have been eliminated ages ago.
posted by Brocktoon at 5:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 5:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
73-year-old Lester Chambers of the Chambers Brothers assaulted onstage after dedicating a song to Trayvon Martin.
posted by metaman livingblog at 5:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by metaman livingblog at 5:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Citizen juries are a ridiculous concept and should have been eliminated ages ago.
You have a right to be tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, in this case, with such a small, overwhelmingly white jury, we will never know if that made a difference.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
You have a right to be tried by a jury of your peers. Unfortunately, in this case, with such a small, overwhelmingly white jury, we will never know if that made a difference.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
no surprise; the prosecution never had anything approaching beyond a reasonable doubt. the more interesting question - which appears to be unsettled under FL law - is whether the acquittal automatically results in immunity from civil suit.
posted by jpe at 5:41 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by jpe at 5:41 AM on July 14, 2013
The jury did their job, it's the law that is broken. The system can be fixed as the system allows itself to be fixed. Vote, volunteer, speak out.
posted by Mick at 5:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Mick at 5:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Shutterbun, this isn't about 6 people. It's about the millions of Floridians that have no problem with the verdict and think stand your ground laws are the answer to a non-existent problem.
posted by photoslob at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by photoslob at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Without the political pressure Zimmerman would not have been charged with Murder.
Without pressure, he wouldn't have been arrested and charged at all. Remember, the police questioned him, decided his story was true and let him go after about five hours.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
Without pressure, he wouldn't have been arrested and charged at all. Remember, the police questioned him, decided his story was true and let him go after about five hours.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
I think it's debatable whether the jury did their job and/or came up with a respectable verdict. There's a lot of racial/class privilege that the defense seems to have taken advantage of.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
" In the end, this wasn't a trial of George Zimmerman, this was a trial of Trayvon Martin"
it was a self-defense claim. how could self-defense be argued without looking at the alleged attacker's conduct?
posted by jpe at 5:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
it was a self-defense claim. how could self-defense be argued without looking at the alleged attacker's conduct?
posted by jpe at 5:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
My own brother lives in Florida, and I still think the state deserves to be boycotted and ostracized. Like few other states, a tourism boycott would hurt Florida. Come on, people. Lets do it.
posted by spitbull at 5:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 5:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Legally speaking, what prevents ANY person who shoots and kills another person, in the absence of witnesses, from claiming they did it in self defense and getting off? Surely I can't just kill somebody and say, "Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, self defense, seeya."
Well, if your victim isn't a black male the jury is going to be less likely to believe a claim that someone randomly tried to murder you for no reason constitutes reasonable doubt.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, if your victim isn't a black male the jury is going to be less likely to believe a claim that someone randomly tried to murder you for no reason constitutes reasonable doubt.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can understand that people are angry about the verdict, but really, the prosecution did an absolutely shit job. I watched a couple of shorts of the "lowlights" on YouTube and it was completely cringeworthy. There was one instance where the prosecution was cross-examining a witness about her Twitter account and he didn't appear to know the difference between Facebook and Twitter, and alleged that she was following people when she was only receiving automatic recommendations to follow them. The PowerPoint summary was also extremely amateurish. Perhaps this kind of thing shouldn't make a difference but the fact is that it does, and it's perhaps unreasonable to expect the jury to be mentally compensating for the difference in courtroom skill of the prosecutor and defense attorneys during their deliberations. Given a case of this high profile, couldn't they have done a better job? I think if O'Mara was the prosecutor and "Dr Phil" as the defense the verdict could easily have gone the other way. So in a sense I think O'Mara deserved his victory today.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 5:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 5:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
2manyusernames: if you think that shooting a young white man wouldn't have gotten George Zimmerman arrested and charged in Florida, you don't understand the United States well enough to comment on this case.
posted by graymouser at 5:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 5:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
@ drinky die: if there's a witness and physical evidence supporting the defendent's story and no evidence to the contrary, this plays out the same regardless of race.
posted by jpe at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by jpe at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
We wouldn't have had the media deliberately editing comments to make Zimmerman seem like a racist.
If you can come up with a better reason for a guy saying that a black kid "walking casually" was on drugs, armed, and about to engage in criminal activity, we're all welcome to hear it.
We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in.
Hey, you want to know how I can tell when someone is eager to defend racists? It's when they use the wack-a-doodle faked stories other people are using to defend racists.
There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested.
Actually, the original uproar surrounded Stand Your Ground, among other things.
There would been no games played with showing a picture of the victim from several years ago, no manipulation by calling the victim by his first name and the killer by his last, none of the bs with comments like "trayvon is African-American. Zimmerman considers himself Latino".
Maybe you should tell that to the defense, who trotted out every stereotype about young black men (drug user! never knew a life without violence! angry football player!) and basically ran Jim Crow literacy tests on his friend that testified in the trial of Trayvon Martin. Oops, I meant George Zimmerman (HINT: No I didn't).
In the end you have 2 people. The killer claims self defense. The evidence and eyewitnesses seemed to support this claim or at the very least insufficient evidence was found to prove it wasn't. The skin colors didn't change those facts.
What we have here is NOT a failure of the justice system. Amazingly it worked just as it should - considering the evidence, the prosecutors actions, and the charge presented. Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent.
Yeah, if you haven't yet got that self-defense laws are batshit crazy by now, you're missing the point, apparently deliberately.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [33 favorites]
If you can come up with a better reason for a guy saying that a black kid "walking casually" was on drugs, armed, and about to engage in criminal activity, we're all welcome to hear it.
We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in.
Hey, you want to know how I can tell when someone is eager to defend racists? It's when they use the wack-a-doodle faked stories other people are using to defend racists.
There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested.
Actually, the original uproar surrounded Stand Your Ground, among other things.
There would been no games played with showing a picture of the victim from several years ago, no manipulation by calling the victim by his first name and the killer by his last, none of the bs with comments like "trayvon is African-American. Zimmerman considers himself Latino".
Maybe you should tell that to the defense, who trotted out every stereotype about young black men (drug user! never knew a life without violence! angry football player!) and basically ran Jim Crow literacy tests on his friend that testified in the trial of Trayvon Martin. Oops, I meant George Zimmerman (HINT: No I didn't).
In the end you have 2 people. The killer claims self defense. The evidence and eyewitnesses seemed to support this claim or at the very least insufficient evidence was found to prove it wasn't. The skin colors didn't change those facts.
What we have here is NOT a failure of the justice system. Amazingly it worked just as it should - considering the evidence, the prosecutors actions, and the charge presented. Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent.
Yeah, if you haven't yet got that self-defense laws are batshit crazy by now, you're missing the point, apparently deliberately.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [33 favorites]
I'm just saying its time to stand our ground, as it were.
No more Florida citrus for me either. And if any academic society I belo g to plans a meeting in Florida I'm calling on my colleagues not to go.
Zimmerman is just the tool. It's the community that is racist.
posted by spitbull at 5:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
No more Florida citrus for me either. And if any academic society I belo g to plans a meeting in Florida I'm calling on my colleagues not to go.
Zimmerman is just the tool. It's the community that is racist.
posted by spitbull at 5:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If Mr Martin was white, you are right that Mr Zimmerman would be recognized as Latino. We wouldn't have had the media deliberately editing comments to make Zimmerman seem like a racist. We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in. There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested. There would been no games played with showing a picture of the victim from several years ago, no manipulation by calling the victim by his first name and the killer by his last, none of the bs with comments like "trayvon is African-American. Zimmerman considers himself Latino".
It's fascinating how you blame everyone except the person who injected himself into the situation and killed an innocent human being who was just standing his ground.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [51 favorites]
It's fascinating how you blame everyone except the person who injected himself into the situation and killed an innocent human being who was just standing his ground.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [51 favorites]
it was a self-defense claim. how could self-defense be argued without looking at the alleged attacker's conduct?
But to make the entire case out of it? Trying to introduce wildly irrelevant tangents like Martin's alleged pot use that would have scientifically impossible for Zimmerman to identify and wouldn't have created the situation Zimmerman described? Creating a picture of Martin as a thug with ghetto friends and having the fucking gall to say that he was the real profiler, nevermind that fear of being an unarmed black kid followed at night by someone who comes off as white was the crime he was in turn being profiled for?
Why did that have to be argued? Oh, right, because that's what black men do.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
But to make the entire case out of it? Trying to introduce wildly irrelevant tangents like Martin's alleged pot use that would have scientifically impossible for Zimmerman to identify and wouldn't have created the situation Zimmerman described? Creating a picture of Martin as a thug with ghetto friends and having the fucking gall to say that he was the real profiler, nevermind that fear of being an unarmed black kid followed at night by someone who comes off as white was the crime he was in turn being profiled for?
Why did that have to be argued? Oh, right, because that's what black men do.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Stand your ground was _no_ factor in the case. The defense waived the pre-trial hearing that it could have had about stand your ground. Because they knew stand your ground didn't apply.
Well, save for the case that the police initially didn't arrest him for the stated reason of SYG, and the arrest and subsequent trial only ever happened because of public pressure after that decision. The misunderstanding of the legal status of the actions pre-trial was itself important as a matter of public policy.
posted by jaduncan at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, save for the case that the police initially didn't arrest him for the stated reason of SYG, and the arrest and subsequent trial only ever happened because of public pressure after that decision. The misunderstanding of the legal status of the actions pre-trial was itself important as a matter of public policy.
posted by jaduncan at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
@ drinky die: if there's a witness and physical evidence supporting the defendent's story and no evidence to the contrary, this plays out the same regardless of race.
The 5/6 white women jury is going to be less likely to believe the kid in this picture decided to murder the other guy for no reason and if they don't believe that claim they are much more likely to convict. We live in a country where black kids sleeping in a car get more 911 calls than white kids actively vandalizing a car in broad daylight, we don't get to pretend that sort of thing doesn't impact juries.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
The 5/6 white women jury is going to be less likely to believe the kid in this picture decided to murder the other guy for no reason and if they don't believe that claim they are much more likely to convict. We live in a country where black kids sleeping in a car get more 911 calls than white kids actively vandalizing a car in broad daylight, we don't get to pretend that sort of thing doesn't impact juries.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
There is a growing call for a civil suit against Zimmerman. Not sure it'd do much in terms of telling the rest of the nation this is wrong, but damn I wanna see it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:57 AM on July 14, 2013
If Mr Martin was white, you are right that Mr Zimmerman would be recognized as Latino. We wouldn't have had the media deliberately editing comments to make Zimmerman seem like a racist. We wouldn't have had the federal government and the opportunity-seekers such as Sharpton sweeping in. There would have been no uproar, no national news, and Mr Zimmerman would not have been arrested.
In many ways, all white people are the real victims here.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
In many ways, all white people are the real victims here.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
" But to make the entire case out of it?"
Self-defense was their entire case, and that's how they prevailed.
I guess they could've spent time on how the weather sure is nice, or how airplane food isn't very good, but typically trial attorneys will spend most or all of their time on their their theory of the case.
re pot use etal: you'll recall that the defense didn't introduce that.
posted by jpe at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2013
Self-defense was their entire case, and that's how they prevailed.
I guess they could've spent time on how the weather sure is nice, or how airplane food isn't very good, but typically trial attorneys will spend most or all of their time on their their theory of the case.
re pot use etal: you'll recall that the defense didn't introduce that.
posted by jpe at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2013
I see the gun control angle of this story is getting lost in racism accusations.
posted by deathpanels at 6:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by deathpanels at 6:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I think the jury basically got it right."
posted by BobbyVan at 6:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by BobbyVan at 6:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
how could self-defense be argued without looking at the alleged attacker's conduct?
This discourse-- both in the context of the legal trial and in the public discourse around it-- are not about conduct, but about character. They are attempting to devalue the victim by making him look less upstanding and they're doing it with allegations of drug use, with Zimmerman's brother's claims about gun running, etc etc. It's exactly the same technique that attempts to diminish the crime of rape by painting victims as sluts. (Obviously the cultural context is different between misogyny/slut-shaming and the racism that is being used in this case, but this technique is nonetheless used the same way here.)
posted by NoraReed at 6:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
This discourse-- both in the context of the legal trial and in the public discourse around it-- are not about conduct, but about character. They are attempting to devalue the victim by making him look less upstanding and they're doing it with allegations of drug use, with Zimmerman's brother's claims about gun running, etc etc. It's exactly the same technique that attempts to diminish the crime of rape by painting victims as sluts. (Obviously the cultural context is different between misogyny/slut-shaming and the racism that is being used in this case, but this technique is nonetheless used the same way here.)
posted by NoraReed at 6:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
If Zimmerman had been an off-duty policeman or an on duty policeman - how many of you would have a different opinion of the outcome?
(and would this have even come to trial, what with the "blue wall of silence")?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:04 AM on July 14, 2013
(and would this have even come to trial, what with the "blue wall of silence")?
posted by rough ashlar at 6:04 AM on July 14, 2013
The case was decided simply on the normal, everyday self-defense theory.
It wasn't really "everyday" theory, and in any case, the self-defense laws are part of the problem/
Go, read the jury instructions. They lay out the relevant law. They even include a sentence that no law not addressed in the jury instructions is pertinent to the case. Now realize, stand your ground is not mentioned anywhere.
Actually, it was:
It wasn't really "everyday" theory, and in any case, the self-defense laws are part of the problem/
Go, read the jury instructions. They lay out the relevant law. They even include a sentence that no law not addressed in the jury instructions is pertinent to the case. Now realize, stand your ground is not mentioned anywhere.
Actually, it was:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.posted by zombieflanders at 6:04 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
2manyusernames wrote, "Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent."
As a foreign observer, I am mightily puzzled by this "guilty until proven innocent" business. Is this a recent revision in the US criminal justice system? Or just a Florida thing? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As a foreign observer, I am mightily puzzled by this "guilty until proven innocent" business. Is this a recent revision in the US criminal justice system? Or just a Florida thing? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I think the jury basically got it right."
Wow, way to cut that one down to fit the conservative talking points. Let's try this again:
Wow, way to cut that one down to fit the conservative talking points. Let's try this again:
1.) Last year--after Zimmerman was arrested--I wrote something hoping that he would be convicted. A commenter wrote in to object, saying that arguing for his arrest was justifiable. Arguing for his conviction was not. I acknowledged the point at the time. The wisdom of it seems even more appropriate today.posted by zombieflanders at 6:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [36 favorites]
2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.
3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him he "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible. It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and Zimmerman then shot him. But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.
4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right--trials don't work as strict "moral surrogates." Everything that is immoral is not illegal--nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished.
5.) I think you should read everything my friend Jelani Cobb has written about this case.
6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.
An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did--buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law and then wait.
7.) Circling back to the first point, it's worth remembering that caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all. This case was really unique because of what happend with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.
Changes the whole meaning if you don't quote something wildly out of context, doesn't it?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
@ Nora Reed: its about the evidence of what happened that night. that and that alone.
posted by jpe at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by jpe at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2013
Not really.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by BobbyVan at 6:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
@ Nora Reed: its about the evidence of what happened that night. that and that alone.
You mean the evidence as to how the confrontation started that came entirely from the person accused of committing the crime? The one who already had a history of violent confrontation and who had stated in his call to 911 and statements to the police that he saw a kid walking casually and inferred that he was on drugs, armed, and casing the neighborhood?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
You mean the evidence as to how the confrontation started that came entirely from the person accused of committing the crime? The one who already had a history of violent confrontation and who had stated in his call to 911 and statements to the police that he saw a kid walking casually and inferred that he was on drugs, armed, and casing the neighborhood?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I'm so glad that NPR chose to put brother Zimmerman on the air so I could upchuck my pancakes
posted by angrycat at 6:15 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by angrycat at 6:15 AM on July 14, 2013
let me put that differently, BobbyVan. Nora simplistically presupposes that there is one, homogenous, undifferentiated discourse, rather than a myriad of different speakers and different discourses.
some of these discourses haves focused on character, but not all of them do; some of them have focuses on the evidence at hand re that night to the exclusion of character.
posted by jpe at 6:15 AM on July 14, 2013
some of these discourses haves focused on character, but not all of them do; some of them have focuses on the evidence at hand re that night to the exclusion of character.
posted by jpe at 6:15 AM on July 14, 2013
" You mean the evidence as to how the confrontation started that came entirely from the person accused of committing the crime?"
if you followed the case and, in particular, the legal thread of it in any detail, you'd know that that was neither proven nor relevant.
(edit: I thought you were making the common but dumb argument that Zimmerman was guilty because he provoked Martin. I may be misreading you, though.)
posted by jpe at 6:17 AM on July 14, 2013
if you followed the case and, in particular, the legal thread of it in any detail, you'd know that that was neither proven nor relevant.
(edit: I thought you were making the common but dumb argument that Zimmerman was guilty because he provoked Martin. I may be misreading you, though.)
posted by jpe at 6:17 AM on July 14, 2013
I may have a more nuanced response later, but for now it's just, "Fuck this country."
posted by Legomancer at 6:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by Legomancer at 6:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
if you followed the case and, in particular, the legal thread of it in any detail, you'd know that that was neither proven nor relevant.
Uh, what? The entire acquittal came from the fact that there was no eyewitness evidence proving that Zimmerman had started or escalated the direct confrontation. Because, the eyewitness was, y'know, shot dead by Zimmerman.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Uh, what? The entire acquittal came from the fact that there was no eyewitness evidence proving that Zimmerman had started or escalated the direct confrontation. Because, the eyewitness was, y'know, shot dead by Zimmerman.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Mister Bijou: "2manyusernames wrote, "Despite the political pressure, despite the threats, the jury kept to the idea of guilty until proven innocent."
As a foreign observer, I am mightily puzzled by this "guilty until proven innocent" business. Is this a recent revision in the US criminal justice system? Or just a Florida thing? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
ha ha, pretty bad mistake there. Yes, I meant "innocent until proven guilty". Sorry about that. :)
posted by 2manyusernames at 6:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As a foreign observer, I am mightily puzzled by this "guilty until proven innocent" business. Is this a recent revision in the US criminal justice system? Or just a Florida thing? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
ha ha, pretty bad mistake there. Yes, I meant "innocent until proven guilty". Sorry about that. :)
posted by 2manyusernames at 6:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I thought you were making the common but dumb argument that Zimmerman was guilty because he provoked Martin. I may be misreading you, though.
A) Don't use the edit function to add entire paragraphs, you're not supposed to do that.
B) If there was eyewitness evidence that Zimmerman had provoked the fight, it died with Martin. But the self-defense laws say that that was what was required. It's stupid self-defense law because it means, as Coates says above, that when two people go into an un-witnessed interaction and only one comes out alive, all the latter has to do is say it was self-defense and they're good.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
A) Don't use the edit function to add entire paragraphs, you're not supposed to do that.
B) If there was eyewitness evidence that Zimmerman had provoked the fight, it died with Martin. But the self-defense laws say that that was what was required. It's stupid self-defense law because it means, as Coates says above, that when two people go into an un-witnessed interaction and only one comes out alive, all the latter has to do is say it was self-defense and they're good.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Pretty much can't feel about this. Hurts if I try. Like some kind of rage integer rollover.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Reminder: Please don't use edit to change or add to your comment (other than typos), especially in a fast-moving thread. Just post another comment if you need to clarify.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by taz (staff) at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2013
I plan to boycott Florida and its products, for a start.
Feel free to go to Buycott and get busy crowdsourcing that effort.
(of course, creating political pressure on the judiciary via economic issues is within ones rights, it does make for the interesting cause/effect of: Will business then create a demand for more competent Judiciary? Or perhaps a 'must have video of your killings for you to have a defence in court ' outcome?)
posted by rough ashlar at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Feel free to go to Buycott and get busy crowdsourcing that effort.
(of course, creating political pressure on the judiciary via economic issues is within ones rights, it does make for the interesting cause/effect of: Will business then create a demand for more competent Judiciary? Or perhaps a 'must have video of your killings for you to have a defence in court ' outcome?)
posted by rough ashlar at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Essentially the self-defense laws are being used to create a very dangerous legal and social construct. If being young and black is enough to get you considered "dangerous," then any non-black person can make a claim that they felt threatened by a black person. Self-defense laws then lead to their logical conclusion as seen in this case:
It has been made legal to kill a black person in the state of Florida.
That is the meaning of this verdict. Nuance about evidence misses the point.
posted by graymouser at 6:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
It has been made legal to kill a black person in the state of Florida.
That is the meaning of this verdict. Nuance about evidence misses the point.
posted by graymouser at 6:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Apart from SYG law in Florida, which was not used in this case, Florida self-defense laws are not different from most states except Ohio. IANAL, but from what I have researched this is true.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, but the bar is low for the defendant to show that s/he acted in self-defense. Once this bar is met, the burden of proof shifts to the State. This is the case in most if not all states, save Ohio.
So IMO, this is not about Florida laws.
posted by snaparapans at 6:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, but the bar is low for the defendant to show that s/he acted in self-defense. Once this bar is met, the burden of proof shifts to the State. This is the case in most if not all states, save Ohio.
So IMO, this is not about Florida laws.
posted by snaparapans at 6:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The prosecution really shit the bed on this, and I sorta half wonder if their hearts were ever in it -that they set up that long shot murder charge and then mishandled proving their case to get it on purpose.
Because it just boggles my mind that they did that.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Because it just boggles my mind that they did that.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here's a legal question that may have been answered in the other thread I forget: if the police tell you to stay in the car, and you fucking don't, why isn't that some sort of extreme negligence? Can't it be argued that his failure to stay in the car was the proximate cause of Martin's death?
posted by angrycat at 6:42 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 6:42 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
He was told not to follow after he was already chasing, not while he was in the car. Anyway, I think they could have convicted him on some sort of negligence charge but they couldn't exactly argue that at the same time they argued it was an intentional killing.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mean, this is the message that white-centric society is sending - that the very lives of black men and women aren't important.
The lives and property of POOR folkes arn't important to the system either. Are these 'unimportant' people well off? If so, like OJ, they can buy the justice they want. (how did Zimmerman afford this legal representation BTW?)
If you don't own land you can't vote was a founding idea of the nation. The Nation is built of screwing 'da poors'.
As for gun violence VS others - that comes from the top. Iraq, Afghanistan, et al all show the citizens that violence and bullying is the way one should address issues. Few on the Blue get outraged about that.
As for 'get the DOJ in there' - shouldn't the DOJ be going after people who lie to Congress and fraud like MJ Global also? If the DOJ can't be bothered to show up for perjury and millions in fraud, how they gonna have enough skill to do the cleaning that is being demanded? There is nothing stopping local bottom up action in Florida to use the local political process to root out the corruption, other than that taking actual WORK and EFFORT vs just saying "Hey DOJ - you do something" and then walking away from the problem.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The lives and property of POOR folkes arn't important to the system either. Are these 'unimportant' people well off? If so, like OJ, they can buy the justice they want. (how did Zimmerman afford this legal representation BTW?)
If you don't own land you can't vote was a founding idea of the nation. The Nation is built of screwing 'da poors'.
As for gun violence VS others - that comes from the top. Iraq, Afghanistan, et al all show the citizens that violence and bullying is the way one should address issues. Few on the Blue get outraged about that.
As for 'get the DOJ in there' - shouldn't the DOJ be going after people who lie to Congress and fraud like MJ Global also? If the DOJ can't be bothered to show up for perjury and millions in fraud, how they gonna have enough skill to do the cleaning that is being demanded? There is nothing stopping local bottom up action in Florida to use the local political process to root out the corruption, other than that taking actual WORK and EFFORT vs just saying "Hey DOJ - you do something" and then walking away from the problem.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
More to the point, how could the prosecution bungle showing clearly that Zimmerman's beliefs the entire night weren't REASONABLE, in the legal context unless it wasn't an accidental oversight. I mean -- once you show that Zimmerman's beliefs weren't reasonable -- and given the chain of bad decisions he made that night that was pretty easy -- there's no self-defense.
posted by mikelieman at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 6:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you're black and have a kid you care about, I'd go out and buy them a gun today.
A handgun makes an excellent graduation gift.
And if this country ever wants a serious conversation about gun control, just imagine a sea of heavily armed black kids who need guns for self defense when they want to walk around at night. that should get the ball rolling nicely...
posted by Renoroc at 6:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
A handgun makes an excellent graduation gift.
And if this country ever wants a serious conversation about gun control, just imagine a sea of heavily armed black kids who need guns for self defense when they want to walk around at night. that should get the ball rolling nicely...
posted by Renoroc at 6:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Others point out that this verdict depended on the unique nature of the law in Florida.
Huh? As far as I know, Zimmerman would have been (appropriately) acquitted under the self-defense law of any state. I don't see anything in that article to the contrary. The case wasn't about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
posted by John Cohen at 6:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Huh? As far as I know, Zimmerman would have been (appropriately) acquitted under the self-defense law of any state. I don't see anything in that article to the contrary. The case wasn't about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
posted by John Cohen at 6:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
zombieflanders: "B) If there was eyewitness evidence that Zimmerman had provoked the fight, it died with Martin. But the self-defense laws say that that was what was required. It's stupid self-defense law because it means, as Coates says above, that when two people go into an un-witnessed interaction and only one comes out alive, all the latter has to do is say it was self-defense and they're good."
And how would you change that fact? Do you propose that the one that comes out alive should have the burden of somehow proving the other guy started the fight?
posted by 2manyusernames at 6:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
And how would you change that fact? Do you propose that the one that comes out alive should have the burden of somehow proving the other guy started the fight?
posted by 2manyusernames at 6:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't understand, I thought the point of manslaughter is to declare that even if it wasn't intentional, you still killed someone.
When you shoot and kill another person the bar to show self-defense should be way, way higher than it appears to be.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
When you shoot and kill another person the bar to show self-defense should be way, way higher than it appears to be.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
And if this country ever wants a serious conversation about gun control, just imagine a sea of heavily armed black kids who need guns for self defense when they want to walk around at night. that should get the ball rolling nicely...
It's already happened. The last time a minority group also became a gun advocacy group (the Black Panthers), gun control laws were enacted with a quickness by none other than Ronald Reagan.
posted by absalom at 6:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [46 favorites]
It's already happened. The last time a minority group also became a gun advocacy group (the Black Panthers), gun control laws were enacted with a quickness by none other than Ronald Reagan.
posted by absalom at 6:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [46 favorites]
Here's a legal question that may have been answered in the other thread I forget: if the police tell you to stay in the car, and you fucking don't, why isn't that some sort of extreme negligence?
It was a dispatcher, not a police office that advised, not ordered, Zimmerman to stay out of it. I forget the exact statement, but at the trial, the dispatcher said they had a policy of only advising, not ordering, as doing the latter might make them legally culpable for whatever actions follow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
It was a dispatcher, not a police office that advised, not ordered, Zimmerman to stay out of it. I forget the exact statement, but at the trial, the dispatcher said they had a policy of only advising, not ordering, as doing the latter might make them legally culpable for whatever actions follow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
And how would you change that fact? Do you propose that the one that comes out alive should have the burden of somehow proving the other guy started the fight?
I think you need to refine the definition of 'started the fight'. As a Jew from New York, if I was walking around my mom's \gated community at night and a skinhead started following me, the moment they got close enough to be a real threat to my safety, they have 'started the fight', and therefore MY RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE begins at that moment.
So, in this context, given the historical prevalence of lynching in the south, it's reasonable that Trayvon Martin was in fear for his life the moment he heard Zimmerman exit the car. And then when Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, Martin resisted the unlawful arrest.
posted by mikelieman at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
I think you need to refine the definition of 'started the fight'. As a Jew from New York, if I was walking around my mom's \gated community at night and a skinhead started following me, the moment they got close enough to be a real threat to my safety, they have 'started the fight', and therefore MY RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE begins at that moment.
So, in this context, given the historical prevalence of lynching in the south, it's reasonable that Trayvon Martin was in fear for his life the moment he heard Zimmerman exit the car. And then when Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, Martin resisted the unlawful arrest.
posted by mikelieman at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
By the same logic, one might seek to avoid a relatively minor conviction (Say, Florida criminal statute 790.053) by killing the other party and claiming self-defence.
(Although in practical terms a young black man in this situation would be about as likely to get justice for having been threatened with a firearm as for having been killed by one, absent witnesses.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:51 AM on July 14, 2013
(Although in practical terms a young black man in this situation would be about as likely to get justice for having been threatened with a firearm as for having been killed by one, absent witnesses.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:51 AM on July 14, 2013
I thought the point of manslaughter is to declare that even if it wasn't intentional, you still killed someone.
For some strange reason, that part of the law (involuntary manslaughter) was left out of the Jury Instructions, leaving them to consider only manslaughter due to overt acts. Again, this is how you game the system to get the result you want, and still appear legitimate.
See also: Amadou Diallo
posted by mikelieman at 6:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
For some strange reason, that part of the law (involuntary manslaughter) was left out of the Jury Instructions, leaving them to consider only manslaughter due to overt acts. Again, this is how you game the system to get the result you want, and still appear legitimate.
See also: Amadou Diallo
posted by mikelieman at 6:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Surely I can't just kill somebody and say, "Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, self defense, seeya."
If you have the magical job title of 'police', then is does seem to be that way. Go out of Country with a job associated with the military, once again the odds favour you.
The DA's work in a system where the bulk of their interactions end up in plea deals and as ShutterBun pointed out upthread - there is a good chance one can walk if one has the money to spend to go to trial.
Outspend the other guy and you've got a good shot at winning the case.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:53 AM on July 14, 2013
If you have the magical job title of 'police', then is does seem to be that way. Go out of Country with a job associated with the military, once again the odds favour you.
The DA's work in a system where the bulk of their interactions end up in plea deals and as ShutterBun pointed out upthread - there is a good chance one can walk if one has the money to spend to go to trial.
Outspend the other guy and you've got a good shot at winning the case.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:53 AM on July 14, 2013
And how would you change that fact? Do you propose that the one that comes out alive should have the burden of somehow proving the other guy started the fight?
If there is evidence including his direct statements that the entire interaction was started on false pretenses, or that they had a history of violent confrontations, or that they were operating under a highly paranoid state of mind or were engaging in always-on "tactical thinking" in a place that is not an active war zone or crime being committed? Yes.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
If there is evidence including his direct statements that the entire interaction was started on false pretenses, or that they had a history of violent confrontations, or that they were operating under a highly paranoid state of mind or were engaging in always-on "tactical thinking" in a place that is not an active war zone or crime being committed? Yes.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
For some strange reason, that part of the law (involuntary manslaughter) was left out of the Jury Instructions, leaving them to consider only manslaughter due to overt acts
Is there a particular legal or judicial reason why this was done?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:57 AM on July 14, 2013
Is there a particular legal or judicial reason why this was done?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:57 AM on July 14, 2013
And if this country ever wants a serious conversation about gun control, just imagine a sea of heavily armed black kids who need guns for self defense when they want to walk around at night. that should get the ball rolling nicely...
People in this thread seem to think that the law would treat black people fairly under any law, current or future. If a bunch of black people shot white people in self-defense, they'd all go to jail.
posted by empath at 6:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
People in this thread seem to think that the law would treat black people fairly under any law, current or future. If a bunch of black people shot white people in self-defense, they'd all go to jail.
posted by empath at 6:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
George Zimmerman is going to be too busy making the rounds doing talks for racists and gun nuts to kill again - it's them that will do the killing.
I think that's one of the more disgusting things about the acquittal--that Zimmerman is probably going to get rich from it. I can only hope those jurors have the decency to stay off of the talk show circuit.
And you're telling me a jury in Florida would acquit a black man who shot a white man if there are no witnesses and he claims self-defense? How naive can you get?
In that instance I believe the applicable terms would be "under the jail" and "awaiting execution".
posted by fuse theorem at 7:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think that's one of the more disgusting things about the acquittal--that Zimmerman is probably going to get rich from it. I can only hope those jurors have the decency to stay off of the talk show circuit.
And you're telling me a jury in Florida would acquit a black man who shot a white man if there are no witnesses and he claims self-defense? How naive can you get?
In that instance I believe the applicable terms would be "under the jail" and "awaiting execution".
posted by fuse theorem at 7:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there a particular legal or judicial reason why this was done?
The Cynic would opine that it is precisely the way Jury Instructions are crafted which subverts the independence of the jury itself. And that it is in this way that a pre-arranged verdict is obtained without looking like a third-world-show-trial. Then the libertarians would chime in about Jury Nullification, and then the Cynic would respond how, of course, trends like that drive the adoption of giving the Jury yet even more limited authority.
posted by mikelieman at 7:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Cynic would opine that it is precisely the way Jury Instructions are crafted which subverts the independence of the jury itself. And that it is in this way that a pre-arranged verdict is obtained without looking like a third-world-show-trial. Then the libertarians would chime in about Jury Nullification, and then the Cynic would respond how, of course, trends like that drive the adoption of giving the Jury yet even more limited authority.
posted by mikelieman at 7:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And BTW, I think that the act of strapping on a gun should by itself increase the burden of proof for the defense. If you have armed yourself, it means you have a reasonable expectation that you will be involved in a violent encounter requiring deadly force. No bullshit excuse about how it's just like putting on a pair of shoes changes that. A pair of shoes isn't expressly designed to maim or kill another human being.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
If a bunch of black people shot white people in self-defense, they'd all go to jail.
What do you mean "if"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
What do you mean "if"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
I think the psychology of this case is interesting. Zimmerman follows Martin with the idea that he may be a burglar. He's fixated on this idea. If true, the suspect would try to run away and would not be aggressive - burglars generally don't attack people on the street. When Martin does fight back strongly, Zimmerman is taken by surprise, in his mind it does not just confirm that Martin is a criminal but that he's a more dangerous one than a burglar. He doesn't have the mental capacity to step back and question his assumptions.
The psychology of folks defending Zimmerman is also interesting - to them, he may be likened to a volunteer firefighter who makes a series of incompetent mistakes which result in a fire spreading and people being killed. On one hand, his incompetence killed people, on the other hand, he volunteered to help the community which is commendable, so they are inclined to be more charitable than if he were on the police force.
posted by rainy at 7:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The psychology of folks defending Zimmerman is also interesting - to them, he may be likened to a volunteer firefighter who makes a series of incompetent mistakes which result in a fire spreading and people being killed. On one hand, his incompetence killed people, on the other hand, he volunteered to help the community which is commendable, so they are inclined to be more charitable than if he were on the police force.
posted by rainy at 7:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The right of self-defense should be proportional to the severity of the threat/assault and the bar for a successful use of it should be proportionately higher with the severity of outcome. An unarmed person killed by an armed person should almost never qualify as self-defense. When it does, it should be extremely difficult to prove.
Insofar as this is often, in practice, the case and should be the case, this rightly dissuades people from using the most deadly force possible to defend themselves, particularly with guns. And that's why the gun nuts so avidly resist this view and why there are SYG laws — they prefer a world where the only choices are to run away or kill. Why do they prefer this? Because they like the idea of being able to kill with ease.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Insofar as this is often, in practice, the case and should be the case, this rightly dissuades people from using the most deadly force possible to defend themselves, particularly with guns. And that's why the gun nuts so avidly resist this view and why there are SYG laws — they prefer a world where the only choices are to run away or kill. Why do they prefer this? Because they like the idea of being able to kill with ease.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
When Martin does fight back strongly,
Here's the thing. That's just Zimmerman's narrative. Which doesn't have any actual evidence to support it.
I prefer the one where Zimmerman tries to unlawfully detain Martin first. THEN the struggle occurs. THEN Zimmerman kills Martin.
Makes a whole lot more sense if you don't buy into the "Crazy Nigger Went Crazy" hypothesis, which I don't.
posted by mikelieman at 7:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
Here's the thing. That's just Zimmerman's narrative. Which doesn't have any actual evidence to support it.
I prefer the one where Zimmerman tries to unlawfully detain Martin first. THEN the struggle occurs. THEN Zimmerman kills Martin.
Makes a whole lot more sense if you don't buy into the "Crazy Nigger Went Crazy" hypothesis, which I don't.
posted by mikelieman at 7:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
Charlie Pierce, doing what he does best: What George Zimmerman Can Do Now
And, of course, this was not about race because nothing is ever about race. The prosecutors even told us that it wasn't about race. The defense won its case because this was not about race. The sharp guys and pundits will spend all weekend explaining how race was an element of the events that night, but that the case, ultimately, was not about race. And because this case was not about race, nothing out of our history counts, because our history, here in the land of the free, is not about race, either. Because our history is not about race, a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was not relevant. Because our history is not about race, last night, Emmett Till was not relevant, even though a few people inconveniently brought him up. But that was years ago, and the country has changed, and it is John Roberts' Day Of Jubilee, and this trial was not about race because nothing is about race any more.posted by zombieflanders at 7:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [81 favorites]
Calm is prevailing. For now. At least, that's something. There will be much for George Zimmerman to do. Things may be a little rough back home, but there will be the victory tour on Fox. And the inevitable book deal. There will be the long career as a hero to the people in the communities that feel themselves besieged by assholes and fucking punks in their hoodies. There will be a long, lovely ride surfing the strange and wonderful celebrity that will befall him now because he stood up to the people who defend the rights of asshoes and fucking punks to walk in their hoodies through neighborhoods where they don't belong, according to him, George Zimmerman, American hero.
But, sooner or later, what American society has told him he can do, what it has now made possible, is that George Zimmerman can load his piece, tuck it into the back of his pants, climb into his SUV, and cruise the rainy streets of Sanford in the night, all of his senses a'tingle, all his instincts honed, on the lookout with his hunter's eye for assholes and fucking punks. There's one down the block. What the hell's he doing here? Asshole. Fucking punk. Better pull over and check this out.
Maybe this is a good time to point out that elections have consequences. As artw pointed out at the top of this thread, so much of this can be traced back to ALEC's batshit-insane policy views and influence.
Isn't it more productive to look at the legal climate that makes full acquittal a possibile (and in my opinion, probably, unfortunately, the legally correct) outcome here?
Why are we okay with untrained neighborhood watch volunteers monitoring streets, following nothing but their own discretion while armed?
Without regard to any particular outcome, that's a terrifying situation, and its unquestioned acceptance is almost certainly rooted in fear and prejudice that are both exploited and codified by active groups. And let's be honest: by a particular party.
posted by graphnerd at 7:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Isn't it more productive to look at the legal climate that makes full acquittal a possibile (and in my opinion, probably, unfortunately, the legally correct) outcome here?
Why are we okay with untrained neighborhood watch volunteers monitoring streets, following nothing but their own discretion while armed?
Without regard to any particular outcome, that's a terrifying situation, and its unquestioned acceptance is almost certainly rooted in fear and prejudice that are both exploited and codified by active groups. And let's be honest: by a particular party.
posted by graphnerd at 7:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
the case, ultimately, was not about race. And because this case was not about race, nothing out of our history counts, because our history, here in the land of the free, is not about race, either. Because our history is not about race, a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was not relevant. Because our history is not about race, last night, Emmett Till was not relevant, even though a few people inconveniently brought him up. But that was years ago, and the country has changed, and it is John Roberts' Day Of Jubilee, and this trial was not about race because nothing is about race any more.Oh, man.. Right there he articulates something I've struggled with. How the entire discussion has been moved off the table. "It's not about race".
Yes, it fucking well is. But since "The Man" controls the medium of discussion, "It's not about race".
posted by mikelieman at 7:11 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
I don't know how many of you have been in a jury or witnessed a jury trial but if you have, it really will shake your faith in a jury system.
I once covered a murder trial where, during deliberations, a juror requested to leave the jury. When the judge asked her how she was leaning on a verdict she said, "I don't know. I don't care." I mean, this was after hours of testimony and deliberations and she didn't care? And she was responsible for the fate of a man's life. I found it unsettling.
I covered another murder trial where a juror said they convicted the defendant because the defense didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't kill his wife, of course, the exact opposite of where the burden of proof should lay.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
I once covered a murder trial where, during deliberations, a juror requested to leave the jury. When the judge asked her how she was leaning on a verdict she said, "I don't know. I don't care." I mean, this was after hours of testimony and deliberations and she didn't care? And she was responsible for the fate of a man's life. I found it unsettling.
I covered another murder trial where a juror said they convicted the defendant because the defense didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't kill his wife, of course, the exact opposite of where the burden of proof should lay.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
Why are we okay with untrained neighborhood watch volunteers monitoring streets, following nothing but their own discretion while armed?
Trained N/W volunteers never patrol while armed. Zimmerman's really trashed their reputation by claiming himself to be the poster boy for it.
posted by mikelieman at 7:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Trained N/W volunteers never patrol while armed. Zimmerman's really trashed their reputation by claiming himself to be the poster boy for it.
posted by mikelieman at 7:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
newdaddy: "Random question - why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?"
Othering.
posted by notsnot at 7:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Othering.
posted by notsnot at 7:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing. That's just Zimmerman's narrative. Which doesn't have any actual evidence to support it.
I prefer the one where Zimmerman tries to unlawfully detain Martin first. THEN the struggle occurs. THEN Zimmerman kills Martin.
I think it's likely that Zimmerman tried to grab him first. When I said "fights back" I meant against either verbal or physical attempts to stall him by Zimmerman. This doesn't change the psychological aspect of it. Zimmerman expected either compliance or running away, the push-back didn't figure into his assumptions at all.
posted by rainy at 7:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I prefer the one where Zimmerman tries to unlawfully detain Martin first. THEN the struggle occurs. THEN Zimmerman kills Martin.
I think it's likely that Zimmerman tried to grab him first. When I said "fights back" I meant against either verbal or physical attempts to stall him by Zimmerman. This doesn't change the psychological aspect of it. Zimmerman expected either compliance or running away, the push-back didn't figure into his assumptions at all.
posted by rainy at 7:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The whole issue of whether the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to "stand down" is really a red herring. The police are never going to explicitly authorize force (or anything that could lead to an exercise of force) for legal liability reasons.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The court did not release the racial and ethnic makeup of the jury, but the panel appeared to reporters covering selection to be made up of five white women and a sixth who may be Hispanic.
This will end well.
posted by stbalbach at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2013
This will end well.
posted by stbalbach at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2013
Zimmerman expected either compliance or running away, the push-back didn't figure into his assumptions at all.
Over the years, I've adopted this personal thing where I don't try too hard to get into other people's heads, especially when they're probably more than a little crazy. I've learned that since they're probably more than a little crazy, and I'm not, the -- let's call it -- impedance mismatch -- is so great that it's impossible to really understand where they're coming from.
Some people, the sky in their world is green. Trying to understand why? That's for other professional disciplines than my own.
posted by mikelieman at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Over the years, I've adopted this personal thing where I don't try too hard to get into other people's heads, especially when they're probably more than a little crazy. I've learned that since they're probably more than a little crazy, and I'm not, the -- let's call it -- impedance mismatch -- is so great that it's impossible to really understand where they're coming from.
Some people, the sky in their world is green. Trying to understand why? That's for other professional disciplines than my own.
posted by mikelieman at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.
That's right. In retrospect, Martin should've killed Zimmerman and claimed self defence.
posted by Greener Backyards at 7:25 AM on July 14, 2013
That's right. In retrospect, Martin should've killed Zimmerman and claimed self defence.
posted by Greener Backyards at 7:25 AM on July 14, 2013
mikelieman: I'm just trying to make sense of what happened, if only to myself.
posted by rainy at 7:27 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by rainy at 7:27 AM on July 14, 2013
1- I kind of agree with the advice above for brown people to go out and legally acquire a gun for self defense. Hell, I think everyone should at least try. (Sell it legally once you get it if you want, the point being to go through the system and see what it actually entails.) This will do two things: one, it will terrify racists. Two, it will educate law abiding citizens on how the system works.
2- Don't blame the courts when the problem is the legislative and executive. They were the ones with the bad laws where an affirmative defense doesn't change the burden of proof, and they were the ones with the awful, awful prosecutor's office. The courts are just the machines that execute the code. And in that respect, I think they pretty much did what they were supposed to.
3- I think the jury instructions and possibly the prosecution did a piss poor job of emphasizing that "an act" when it comes to disregard for human life, can be a series of events. The pro-self-defense people try very hard to make it clear that the incident somehow began with Zimmerman on his back and Travon hitting him. Sure, from that perspective, it seems like self defense applies. But that wasn't the whole incident, and Zimmerman's pattern of behavior leading up to that moment is what showed a disregard for human life.
3b- And that the standard of fear was not "was George Zimmerman in fear of his life", because it's pretty easy to see that he was. But that the standard is "would a reasonable person be in fear of his or her life in a similar situation." That I'm not so sure about.
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
Absolutely she would have. If she'd killed him she'd likely never even have been charged. Eliminate the witnesses and you're better off.
That is not really it at all. The point is that the two cases aren't really the same, trite facebook headlines notwithstanding. The point is that you don't pull the trigger of a gun until you are legally allowed to do so. You are not legally allowed to fire a warning shot, end of story. You ARE legally allowed to defend your life, if you are reasonably in fear of it.
posted by gjc at 7:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
2- Don't blame the courts when the problem is the legislative and executive. They were the ones with the bad laws where an affirmative defense doesn't change the burden of proof, and they were the ones with the awful, awful prosecutor's office. The courts are just the machines that execute the code. And in that respect, I think they pretty much did what they were supposed to.
3- I think the jury instructions and possibly the prosecution did a piss poor job of emphasizing that "an act" when it comes to disregard for human life, can be a series of events. The pro-self-defense people try very hard to make it clear that the incident somehow began with Zimmerman on his back and Travon hitting him. Sure, from that perspective, it seems like self defense applies. But that wasn't the whole incident, and Zimmerman's pattern of behavior leading up to that moment is what showed a disregard for human life.
3b- And that the standard of fear was not "was George Zimmerman in fear of his life", because it's pretty easy to see that he was. But that the standard is "would a reasonable person be in fear of his or her life in a similar situation." That I'm not so sure about.
So that Marissa Alexander woman in Blazecock Pileon's comment would have had a better chance legally if she'd killed her husband? If you get into a fight in Florida, the easiest thing to do if you want to avoid jail is shoot your opponent? That is a strange state.
Absolutely she would have. If she'd killed him she'd likely never even have been charged. Eliminate the witnesses and you're better off.
That is not really it at all. The point is that the two cases aren't really the same, trite facebook headlines notwithstanding. The point is that you don't pull the trigger of a gun until you are legally allowed to do so. You are not legally allowed to fire a warning shot, end of story. You ARE legally allowed to defend your life, if you are reasonably in fear of it.
posted by gjc at 7:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
In retrospect, Martin should've killed Zimmerman and claimed self defence.
Considering that the defense already put him on trial and won, it's almost certain that Trayvon would've been charged as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to death. Because this is about race, not self-defense.
posted by graymouser at 7:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [40 favorites]
Considering that the defense already put him on trial and won, it's almost certain that Trayvon would've been charged as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to death. Because this is about race, not self-defense.
posted by graymouser at 7:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [40 favorites]
I think it's likely that Zimmerman tried to grab him first. When I said "fights back" I meant against either verbal or physical attempts to stall him by Zimmerman. This doesn't change the psychological aspect of it. Zimmerman expected either compliance or running away, the push-back didn't figure into his assumptions at all.
He never would have gotten out of his car if he wasn't packing heat. The weapon gave him the courage to go confront "the perp". Then the adrenalin of the chase got to him.
posted by gjc at 7:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
He never would have gotten out of his car if he wasn't packing heat. The weapon gave him the courage to go confront "the perp". Then the adrenalin of the chase got to him.
posted by gjc at 7:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Remember everyone, an armed society is a polite society.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
it's almost certain that Trayvon would've been charged as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to death.
It's absolutely certain this wouldn't have happened.
posted by dsfan at 7:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's absolutely certain this wouldn't have happened.
posted by dsfan at 7:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The whole issue of whether the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to "stand down" is really a red herring. The police are never going to explicitly authorize force (or anything that could lead to an exercise of force) for legal liability reasons.
The "order" to stand down IS a red herring, since the 911 operator has little to no authority to order people around. But I think that part of the tape is important for a different reason. Why did the dispatcher say "are you following him?" Because he heard the "ding ding ding" of the car's door opening. He tells Zimmerman that he doesn't need to follow Trayvon, and Zimmerman says OK. All in the span of 10 seconds or so. The rest of the call goes on for at least another 30 seconds, if my memory serves. So if Zimmerman says he was trying to go back to his car, and got jumped before he got back, what took so long? Answer: Zimmerman's story is missing something. And the prosecution fucked up in not pushing that point the entire time.
posted by gjc at 7:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
The "order" to stand down IS a red herring, since the 911 operator has little to no authority to order people around. But I think that part of the tape is important for a different reason. Why did the dispatcher say "are you following him?" Because he heard the "ding ding ding" of the car's door opening. He tells Zimmerman that he doesn't need to follow Trayvon, and Zimmerman says OK. All in the span of 10 seconds or so. The rest of the call goes on for at least another 30 seconds, if my memory serves. So if Zimmerman says he was trying to go back to his car, and got jumped before he got back, what took so long? Answer: Zimmerman's story is missing something. And the prosecution fucked up in not pushing that point the entire time.
posted by gjc at 7:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
It's absolutely certain this wouldn't have happened.
OK, conceded - life imprisonment, then.
posted by graymouser at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2013
OK, conceded - life imprisonment, then.
posted by graymouser at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2013
"The right of self-defense should be proportional to the severity of the threat/assault"
Strong disagree. Defending yourself is a basic right ("Naturrecht"). The attacker always has the option to stop his attack.
What you're effectively proposing is giving attackers the opporunity to set up an attack in such way, that it cannot be averted and must not be defended against. A guaranteed win for the attacker (if the victim is staying on the side of the law). Bad idea. Really.
I'm always amazed how controversial stand your ground is in the United States. When it still doesn't come close to the broad right of self-defense that German law provides.
And, lo and behold, in general it all seems to work much better here than in the US. Probably because we haven't equipped the whole populace with guns.
posted by 2uo at 7:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Strong disagree. Defending yourself is a basic right ("Naturrecht"). The attacker always has the option to stop his attack.
What you're effectively proposing is giving attackers the opporunity to set up an attack in such way, that it cannot be averted and must not be defended against. A guaranteed win for the attacker (if the victim is staying on the side of the law). Bad idea. Really.
I'm always amazed how controversial stand your ground is in the United States. When it still doesn't come close to the broad right of self-defense that German law provides.
And, lo and behold, in general it all seems to work much better here than in the US. Probably because we haven't equipped the whole populace with guns.
posted by 2uo at 7:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
gjc: It might have given him courage, my read is that he'd have gotten out of the car regardless, but it's anyone's guess.
I doubt anyone on the jury bought the Zimmerman story entirely. It's pretty plain that he flourished up the story because he's afraid of a lifetime in prison.
posted by rainy at 7:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I doubt anyone on the jury bought the Zimmerman story entirely. It's pretty plain that he flourished up the story because he's afraid of a lifetime in prison.
posted by rainy at 7:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As the parent of a black boy, and a black boy who is not naturally compliant or obedient even at age seven, I'm both furious and worried sick by this trial.
Hordes of wannabe George Zimmermans are now emboldened to go out and play cop or vigilante and the Florida courts have basically declared it to be open season on people like my son.
My wife was weeping this morning from worry and upset. We're seriously discussing moving to a country with fewer guns. We do not want our kid to be the next Trayvon Martin.
posted by sotonohito at 7:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [61 favorites]
Hordes of wannabe George Zimmermans are now emboldened to go out and play cop or vigilante and the Florida courts have basically declared it to be open season on people like my son.
My wife was weeping this morning from worry and upset. We're seriously discussing moving to a country with fewer guns. We do not want our kid to be the next Trayvon Martin.
posted by sotonohito at 7:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [61 favorites]
Considering that the defense already put him on trial and won, it's almost certain that Trayvon would've been charged as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to death. Because this is about race, not self-defense.
But as Coates notes, being dead is a big disadvantage in a case of self defence. Of course it's about race, and it's also about the insanity of these self defence laws in Florida
posted by Greener Backyards at 7:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
But as Coates notes, being dead is a big disadvantage in a case of self defence. Of course it's about race, and it's also about the insanity of these self defence laws in Florida
posted by Greener Backyards at 7:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And the worst part is that George Zimmerman gets to keep his guns and go hunting more black kids. The massive failure of the justice system is no more evident than in that fact.
posted by sotonohito at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I kind of agree with the advice above for brown people to go out and legally acquire a gun for self defense. Hell, I think everyone should at least try. (Sell it legally once you get it if you want, the point being to go through the system and see what it actually entails.) This will do two things: one, it will terrify racists. Two, it will educate law abiding citizens on how the system works.
Nevermind the arguments about mutually assured destruction in this case, but what makes you think that they won't just pass laws making it harder for brown people to go out and legally acquire guns? Remember, they just got the go-ahead to make it harder for brown people to vote, after all, and that was supposedly protected by the Constitution as well.
We live in a country where the most powerful gun and ammo (manufacturer) lobbies in the country have leaders that testify in front of Congress about citizens protecting themselves and then go home and write op-eds for major newspapers where they lie their faces off about "urban" neighborhoods rioting and looting after natural disasters as justifications for armed citizenry. I mean, it's not even subtext at that point as to the color of the skin of the armed and the targets. And I don't see the so-called "responsible" gun owners here or elsewhere saying "Holy shit, that guy just said a bunch of racist shit." Quite the opposite in fact, they cheer it on.
No, the white guys and the crazy paranoid (ex-)military and wannabe military types run the gun law show in this day and age, and will for the foreseeable future. They'll pass a law or there will be a decision by a SCOTUS run by a guy who had the job of gutting civil rights under Reagan that will make it harder to get a gun in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and the yahoos will salute it as a fine and measured decision. After all, we all know the violence was started in those neighborhoods, that they live in a world of drugs and violence that they impose on themselves, that the real racists are the brown folks walking around casually and getting antsy when a Real American wonders what they're doing in their part of town.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Nevermind the arguments about mutually assured destruction in this case, but what makes you think that they won't just pass laws making it harder for brown people to go out and legally acquire guns? Remember, they just got the go-ahead to make it harder for brown people to vote, after all, and that was supposedly protected by the Constitution as well.
We live in a country where the most powerful gun and ammo (manufacturer) lobbies in the country have leaders that testify in front of Congress about citizens protecting themselves and then go home and write op-eds for major newspapers where they lie their faces off about "urban" neighborhoods rioting and looting after natural disasters as justifications for armed citizenry. I mean, it's not even subtext at that point as to the color of the skin of the armed and the targets. And I don't see the so-called "responsible" gun owners here or elsewhere saying "Holy shit, that guy just said a bunch of racist shit." Quite the opposite in fact, they cheer it on.
No, the white guys and the crazy paranoid (ex-)military and wannabe military types run the gun law show in this day and age, and will for the foreseeable future. They'll pass a law or there will be a decision by a SCOTUS run by a guy who had the job of gutting civil rights under Reagan that will make it harder to get a gun in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and the yahoos will salute it as a fine and measured decision. After all, we all know the violence was started in those neighborhoods, that they live in a world of drugs and violence that they impose on themselves, that the real racists are the brown folks walking around casually and getting antsy when a Real American wonders what they're doing in their part of town.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Remember everyone, an armed society is a polite society.
Well, kind of yeah. This case sort of revolves around the fact that an innocent person was killed by someone with a gun. If that innocent had a gun, and Zimmerman knew that he wasn't going to be the big man with the hand cannon, they both probably would have left each other alone.
So much violence in this society depends on the perpetrators knowing that the victims can't or won't fight back. Not all of it, of course, but a lot of it. And usually the most heart breaking cases.
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket, this would have gone down differently. I'm not sure if it wouldn't have still been a tragedy, but Trayvon would have had a fighting chance.
I'm always amazed how controversial stand your ground is in the United States. When it still doesn't come close to the broad right of self-defense that German law provides.
Like so many laws in the US, "Stand your Ground" means quite a bit more than that. It can mean that you can shoot an intruder in the back, running away, if he is carrying your VCR. It can mean that you are allowed to charge into a situation and use force, if you think a felony is being committed. It doesn't just mean that you don't have to try to run away first.
posted by gjc at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, kind of yeah. This case sort of revolves around the fact that an innocent person was killed by someone with a gun. If that innocent had a gun, and Zimmerman knew that he wasn't going to be the big man with the hand cannon, they both probably would have left each other alone.
So much violence in this society depends on the perpetrators knowing that the victims can't or won't fight back. Not all of it, of course, but a lot of it. And usually the most heart breaking cases.
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket, this would have gone down differently. I'm not sure if it wouldn't have still been a tragedy, but Trayvon would have had a fighting chance.
I'm always amazed how controversial stand your ground is in the United States. When it still doesn't come close to the broad right of self-defense that German law provides.
Like so many laws in the US, "Stand your Ground" means quite a bit more than that. It can mean that you can shoot an intruder in the back, running away, if he is carrying your VCR. It can mean that you are allowed to charge into a situation and use force, if you think a felony is being committed. It doesn't just mean that you don't have to try to run away first.
posted by gjc at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket, this would have gone down differently. I'm not sure if it wouldn't have still been a tragedy, but Trayvon would have had a fighting chance.
Curious about the data showing that during physical assaults, the likelihood of a shot fired decreases if both participants are carrying guns vs. one person carrying a gun.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Curious about the data showing that during physical assaults, the likelihood of a shot fired decreases if both participants are carrying guns vs. one person carrying a gun.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
massive failure of the justice system
Isn't one of the 'good' features of the legal system supposed to be "better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be imprisoned"?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Isn't one of the 'good' features of the legal system supposed to be "better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be imprisoned"?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Just want to point out that saying "the state didn't prove its case" is salt on the wound for black people here.
Because we can point you to incidents where "the state didn't prove its case" (that is, in the same sense we see here: they constructed their argument and presented their facts very sloppily and weakly) and black people still went to jail.
Doesn't matter if you're the victim, doesn't matter if you're the defendant: if you're a black person whose life or end of life intersects with the American criminal justice system, you (or your loved ones if you're deceased) simply cannot reasonably expect good things.
Today, I'm just thankful that the boy doesn't understand why I'm being extra loving toward him, and I'm grateful that he has at least 4 - 5 more years before I have to start explaining the world to him.
Wait...I might not have that much time. I'm thinking back to my memories of growing up in Florida. How, when I was in the 4th grade, I rode my bike to visit a white friend from my elementary school, and another kid from my elementary school ran up to me as I was riding down the street and said, "What are you doing over here, nigger? You wanna get your ass kicked?" He ran alongside me for several feet, but he left me alone because I ignored him even though I did want to get off my bike and start something. I guess even at that age, I knew that would have ended poorly for me no matter what happened in the struggle between me and him.
The following year, as I was riding my bike to visit another white friend, a car with a couple of white men in it passed me and the passenger yelled almost the same thing as that kid had yelled, "What are you doing in this neighborhood, nigger?" That scared me badly, and it does to this day. The road happened to be alongside a canal, and had they decided to stop the car, do me harm, and throw me in the canal, my family would still be wondering what happened to me and why I "ran away" from home.
I never told my mother about those incidents. I never will. But they'll be fresh on my mind when my son enters elementary school. As I told my wife last night, that's just how the world is. Not much has changed in the thirty years or so since those incidents, and I don't foresee much changing between now and the time my son is a 4th grader.
posted by lord_wolf at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [108 favorites]
Because we can point you to incidents where "the state didn't prove its case" (that is, in the same sense we see here: they constructed their argument and presented their facts very sloppily and weakly) and black people still went to jail.
Doesn't matter if you're the victim, doesn't matter if you're the defendant: if you're a black person whose life or end of life intersects with the American criminal justice system, you (or your loved ones if you're deceased) simply cannot reasonably expect good things.
Today, I'm just thankful that the boy doesn't understand why I'm being extra loving toward him, and I'm grateful that he has at least 4 - 5 more years before I have to start explaining the world to him.
Wait...I might not have that much time. I'm thinking back to my memories of growing up in Florida. How, when I was in the 4th grade, I rode my bike to visit a white friend from my elementary school, and another kid from my elementary school ran up to me as I was riding down the street and said, "What are you doing over here, nigger? You wanna get your ass kicked?" He ran alongside me for several feet, but he left me alone because I ignored him even though I did want to get off my bike and start something. I guess even at that age, I knew that would have ended poorly for me no matter what happened in the struggle between me and him.
The following year, as I was riding my bike to visit another white friend, a car with a couple of white men in it passed me and the passenger yelled almost the same thing as that kid had yelled, "What are you doing in this neighborhood, nigger?" That scared me badly, and it does to this day. The road happened to be alongside a canal, and had they decided to stop the car, do me harm, and throw me in the canal, my family would still be wondering what happened to me and why I "ran away" from home.
I never told my mother about those incidents. I never will. But they'll be fresh on my mind when my son enters elementary school. As I told my wife last night, that's just how the world is. Not much has changed in the thirty years or so since those incidents, and I don't foresee much changing between now and the time my son is a 4th grader.
posted by lord_wolf at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [108 favorites]
zombieflanders: what I'm saying is that if more people showed up and exercised their rights, then the gun law regime would no longer be the sole domain of the white gun nut. People don't get their rights recognized by staying in the back of the bus. Peaceful, lawful resistance always works. The only difference is how long it takes.
posted by gjc at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by gjc at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket, this would have gone down differently. I'm not sure if it wouldn't have still been a tragedy, but Trayvon would have had a fighting chance.
Are you joking? Even if he had killed Zimmerman, he'd have gotten the chair.
posted by empath at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Are you joking? Even if he had killed Zimmerman, he'd have gotten the chair.
posted by empath at 7:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
It is so rare in this country that a black man having a gun has made him safer, either on the streets or in the courts.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by girlmightlive at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
Like so many laws in the US, "Stand your Ground" means quite a bit more than that. It can mean that you can shoot an intruder in the back, running away, if he is carrying your VCR.
As long as there's no other way to get the TV back, such a thing is totally uncontroversial in German law. There are very, very few dissenters.
"In self-defense there's no proportionality" is actually a kind of saying that students learn.
posted by 2uo at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
As long as there's no other way to get the TV back, such a thing is totally uncontroversial in German law. There are very, very few dissenters.
"In self-defense there's no proportionality" is actually a kind of saying that students learn.
posted by 2uo at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket
He was a minor, so no CCL for him.
And a black kid carrying open like that ? Yeah, I can see that going real well for him.
Besides, the pictures of him making a finger gun on twitter proves what a violent thug he was.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
He was a minor, so no CCL for him.
And a black kid carrying open like that ? Yeah, I can see that going real well for him.
Besides, the pictures of him making a finger gun on twitter proves what a violent thug he was.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Because he had a right, a lawful right - and I'm willing to bet this is one of the pieces the aquittal hinged on - to be there. Whether or not we think he was a dick for doing so, he had a lawful right to follow Martin. And he had a lawful right to follow Martin without being punched in the face, or grabbed, or any of that stuff. Zimmerman's words do not a legitimate attack by Martin make. We may think he had no moral right to follow, but under the law he was not acting improperly.
We don't know that this is true. Zimmerman's actions were indistinguishable from your average mugger or rapist. corb, my advice is that, simply because something is on your mind that you think is "a different view" or "provocative", does not necessarily mean you have to share it with us. This case is in line with a century of white-on-black violence for perceived slights.
posted by deanc at 7:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
We don't know that this is true. Zimmerman's actions were indistinguishable from your average mugger or rapist. corb, my advice is that, simply because something is on your mind that you think is "a different view" or "provocative", does not necessarily mean you have to share it with us. This case is in line with a century of white-on-black violence for perceived slights.
posted by deanc at 7:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
The lesson here isn't, "black people should buy guns." That's certainly cute, but ultimately a bunch of bullshit. Gun or no gun, there is no happy ending for Martin in his story the moment Zimmerman entered his life.
I'd say the lesson here is don't be black in Florida. Probably most/all America. People should get the fuck out of that piece of shit state.
posted by chunking express at 8:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I'd say the lesson here is don't be black in Florida. Probably most/all America. People should get the fuck out of that piece of shit state.
posted by chunking express at 8:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
If Trayvon had a legal gun in his pocket, this would have gone down differently. I'm not sure if it wouldn't have still been a tragedy, but Trayvon would have had a fighting chance.
Or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back at a distance, for fear of armed resistance. We are not dealing with a rational actor here, nor can we really run the probabilities of what might have happened if one variable had been tweaked with any certainty, not least because we have only one person's account of what happened, and that person is not a rational agent.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back at a distance, for fear of armed resistance. We are not dealing with a rational actor here, nor can we really run the probabilities of what might have happened if one variable had been tweaked with any certainty, not least because we have only one person's account of what happened, and that person is not a rational agent.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Re: Germany
Actually we had such a case some time ago:
Young males with immigration background (Sinti or Roma, I think) break into hut in the forest and get stuff. Owner, quite old and sitting in a wheelchair, is unfortunately also there.
Guys run away with loot. Owner shoots and kills one of them.
Outrage in the public: "He killed just for some money. And he's obviously a racist. Hate crime!"
Public prosecutor denies prosecution. (Correct decision)
After much ado in the press (always confusing perp and victim), the dead attacker's family go to court, court forces the prosecutor to prosecute. (Silly decision in that case, but in general this mechanism is needed, of course).
(Actually the court only forced him to do that because at that point in time there was some uncertainty about a forensic report pointing not to some shot in the general direction to stop the attacker, but a very perfectly aimed shot to kill -- which would probably not fall under self-defense)
Prosecutor charges victim with manslaughter. Trial court denies opening of trial, because it's obviously frivolous.
Clear case of self-defense. End of story.
posted by 2uo at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Actually we had such a case some time ago:
Young males with immigration background (Sinti or Roma, I think) break into hut in the forest and get stuff. Owner, quite old and sitting in a wheelchair, is unfortunately also there.
Guys run away with loot. Owner shoots and kills one of them.
Outrage in the public: "He killed just for some money. And he's obviously a racist. Hate crime!"
Public prosecutor denies prosecution. (Correct decision)
After much ado in the press (always confusing perp and victim), the dead attacker's family go to court, court forces the prosecutor to prosecute. (Silly decision in that case, but in general this mechanism is needed, of course).
(Actually the court only forced him to do that because at that point in time there was some uncertainty about a forensic report pointing not to some shot in the general direction to stop the attacker, but a very perfectly aimed shot to kill -- which would probably not fall under self-defense)
Prosecutor charges victim with manslaughter. Trial court denies opening of trial, because it's obviously frivolous.
Clear case of self-defense. End of story.
posted by 2uo at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Can we please just rename our justice system and try to find a word that bears some semblance to the kind of system it actually is?
posted by crayz at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by crayz at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I didn't follow the trial and don't have an opinion on the evidence, but I do have to say that I am impressed that the jury correctly understood the interplay of murder, manslaughter and self-defense.
There was simply never any basis for a manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is for when you are doing something wrong which isn't obviously likely to result in death, but which nevertheless causes death. Drive drunk and run someone over, push someone and they hit their head in a freak event? That's manslaughter. Pull your gun and shoot someone center mass? That carries an absolute intention to kill -- it's murder in the first degree if you planned it, murder in the second degree if it was spontaneous, and it's simply not a crime if in self-defense.
posted by MattD at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
There was simply never any basis for a manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is for when you are doing something wrong which isn't obviously likely to result in death, but which nevertheless causes death. Drive drunk and run someone over, push someone and they hit their head in a freak event? That's manslaughter. Pull your gun and shoot someone center mass? That carries an absolute intention to kill -- it's murder in the first degree if you planned it, murder in the second degree if it was spontaneous, and it's simply not a crime if in self-defense.
posted by MattD at 8:01 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
what I'm saying is that if more people showed up and exercised their rights, then the gun law regime would no longer be the sole domain of the white gun nut. People don't get their rights recognized by staying in the back of the bus. Peaceful, lawful resistance always works. The only difference is how long it takes.
The reaction of white people to black people not staying in the back of the bus (or GLBT people not staying in the closet, for that matter) was beatings of lawful marchers (at Pettus Bridge and many other places), spraying them with high-pressure firehoses, siccing vicious dogs on them, blackmail, extortion, accusations of treason, and much much more. And that was just the people with legal authority. On top of that, there's a whole history of massacres, assassinations, lynchings, "accidents," and a whole host of stuff that continues until today, very often with those same authorities looking the other way or throwing up roadblocks (literal and metaphorical) or dragging their feet.
So, given all that, what do you think will happen when the people who don't want to be shot because of the color of their skin or who they love start arming themselves en masse, and the people talking loudest about the need for an armed populace tend to be racist or homophobic?
posted by zombieflanders at 8:04 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
The reaction of white people to black people not staying in the back of the bus (or GLBT people not staying in the closet, for that matter) was beatings of lawful marchers (at Pettus Bridge and many other places), spraying them with high-pressure firehoses, siccing vicious dogs on them, blackmail, extortion, accusations of treason, and much much more. And that was just the people with legal authority. On top of that, there's a whole history of massacres, assassinations, lynchings, "accidents," and a whole host of stuff that continues until today, very often with those same authorities looking the other way or throwing up roadblocks (literal and metaphorical) or dragging their feet.
So, given all that, what do you think will happen when the people who don't want to be shot because of the color of their skin or who they love start arming themselves en masse, and the people talking loudest about the need for an armed populace tend to be racist or homophobic?
posted by zombieflanders at 8:04 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I do not know how anyone could have followed this trial and thought that the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I know almost everyone here has a certain (rather melodramatic) movie of the events running in their heads and refers to that rather than to the actual evidence available when determining Zimmerman's guilt, but if you just look at the actual evidence presented in the trial this outcome was entirely predictable. In fact, I predicted it repeatedly in the very first Trayvon Martin thread.
posted by yoink at 8:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by yoink at 8:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Fourth in the world in gun death rates. Entrenched racism. Right wing media that tirelessly fans the flames of hatred and paranoia. A mind-boggling amount of guns. The NRA and the politicians in their pockets. Bizarre "stand your ground" laws.
The future doesn't look too bright for America.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
The future doesn't look too bright for America.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Agree with yoink: watched maybe an hour of it all told and thete seemed plenty of reasonable doubt. None of which the prosecution dispelled. Didn't really think they stood a chance. Moral outrage isn't facts. The defense were smart to bring in the second medical examiner. Doubt is all you need.
posted by umberto at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by umberto at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"As long as there's no other way to get the TV back, such a thing is totally uncontroversial in German law. There are very, very few dissenters."
but then later
"Guys run away with loot. Owner shoots and kills one of them. Outrage in the public..."
You're not even self-consistent in your representation to MetaFilter for all of Germany and, oh, I have approximately zero fucking interest in the enlightened vigor of German self-defense theory.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
but then later
"Guys run away with loot. Owner shoots and kills one of them. Outrage in the public..."
You're not even self-consistent in your representation to MetaFilter for all of Germany and, oh, I have approximately zero fucking interest in the enlightened vigor of German self-defense theory.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:19 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
The guy chased some kid down and shot him. Where else in the known universe would the prosecution need to do anything but show up and give each other high fives to get a conviction?
posted by chunking express at 8:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 8:20 AM on July 14, 2013 [21 favorites]
such a thing is totally uncontroversial in German law. There are very, very few dissenters.
"In self-defense there's no proportionality" is actually a kind of saying that students learn.
That doesn't seem to be true, at my glance. If you look at the German Criminal Code, self-defence only is a defensive action necessary to prevent an imminent attack on a person. Exceeding the limits via fear/confusion/terror is allowable.
Property is governed by s.34, Necessity, and it states quite clearly that there's a proportionality requirement.
that being said, this is a derail. We're talking common law and specifically american law here.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
"In self-defense there's no proportionality" is actually a kind of saying that students learn.
That doesn't seem to be true, at my glance. If you look at the German Criminal Code, self-defence only is a defensive action necessary to prevent an imminent attack on a person. Exceeding the limits via fear/confusion/terror is allowable.
Property is governed by s.34, Necessity, and it states quite clearly that there's a proportionality requirement.
that being said, this is a derail. We're talking common law and specifically american law here.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I don't hope that anyone takes George Zimmerman's life. I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I wouldn't personally mind it if something happened to him, but I would never advocate it. I do hope, however, that...
1) a civil case can be brought against Zimmerman, he is found guilty, and never able to profit from Trayvon Martin's death
2) every time George Zimmerman leaves his house, anywhere he goes, he is followed by someone in plain clothes carrying a gun. Because he looks suspicious.
3) George Zimmerman takes the MILLIONS his supporters donated to him, takes his brother and his parents and his wife to a new country and starts a new life. He beat a system that never wanted to try or arrest him in the first place. He never has to look over his shoulder and I never have to hear him speak on tv.
All of these. Any of these. And obviously that he repents his actions, personally and to any god he believes in, and never takes another life.
posted by elr at 8:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
1) a civil case can be brought against Zimmerman, he is found guilty, and never able to profit from Trayvon Martin's death
2) every time George Zimmerman leaves his house, anywhere he goes, he is followed by someone in plain clothes carrying a gun. Because he looks suspicious.
3) George Zimmerman takes the MILLIONS his supporters donated to him, takes his brother and his parents and his wife to a new country and starts a new life. He beat a system that never wanted to try or arrest him in the first place. He never has to look over his shoulder and I never have to hear him speak on tv.
All of these. Any of these. And obviously that he repents his actions, personally and to any god he believes in, and never takes another life.
posted by elr at 8:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
zombieflanders, thank you for pointing out the error in this post, which claims that "Stand your ground was _no_ factor in the case" (and calls people complaining about these laws "clueless", to boot).
Zimmerman did not ask for a pretrial hearing on a SYG defense (as was his right) but the self-defense law he relied on and on which the jury was instructed -- Fla. Stat. sec. 776.012 - is in fact known as Florida's "stand your ground" law — see here, for example — and its current form is the result of a 2005 amendment that ALEC and the NRA (and others) had lobbied for.
On preview: See also gatorae.
posted by Eyebeams at 8:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Zimmerman did not ask for a pretrial hearing on a SYG defense (as was his right) but the self-defense law he relied on and on which the jury was instructed -- Fla. Stat. sec. 776.012 - is in fact known as Florida's "stand your ground" law — see here, for example — and its current form is the result of a 2005 amendment that ALEC and the NRA (and others) had lobbied for.
On preview: See also gatorae.
posted by Eyebeams at 8:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
I have noticed on Facebook and other media that the conservative folks who were outraged at FL for Casey Anthony are just all atwitter and "woo-hoo, one win for our side" about Zimmerman.
posted by Ber at 8:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Ber at 8:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Stand your ground was _no_ factor in the case. The defense waived the pre-trial hearing that it could have had about stand your ground. Because they knew stand your ground didn't apply.
I've seen a variation of this stated a few times so far, and it is incorrect. This was without question a stand your ground case because the jury was instructed on the stand your ground law. Below is the text of Florida's SYG statute and the text of the jury instructions from the Zimmerman case, so you can compare.
Florida's stand your ground statute as applicable here (776.031(3)):
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Jury instructions in the George Zimmerman case:
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
--
A few people have expressed surprise that the manslaughter charge didn't stick - this shows that SYG applied to both the murder and manslaughter charges. Given the not guilty for manslaughter, it is likely that the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force.
posted by gatorae at 8:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I've seen a variation of this stated a few times so far, and it is incorrect. This was without question a stand your ground case because the jury was instructed on the stand your ground law. Below is the text of Florida's SYG statute and the text of the jury instructions from the Zimmerman case, so you can compare.
Florida's stand your ground statute as applicable here (776.031(3)):
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Jury instructions in the George Zimmerman case:
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
--
A few people have expressed surprise that the manslaughter charge didn't stick - this shows that SYG applied to both the murder and manslaughter charges. Given the not guilty for manslaughter, it is likely that the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force.
posted by gatorae at 8:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Can we please just rename our justice system and try to find a word that bears some semblance to the kind of system it actually is?
I think The New Jim Crow is an appropriate term. This case of course is not directly related to the drug war that Michelle Alexander is so rough on in the book, but damn if it isn't connected.
posted by graymouser at 8:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think The New Jim Crow is an appropriate term. This case of course is not directly related to the drug war that Michelle Alexander is so rough on in the book, but damn if it isn't connected.
posted by graymouser at 8:27 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Are we sure the prosecution was even trying? I mean they are in Florida. What's their incentive to win? Can a D.A. run on a platform of "We sent a man to prison for killing Trayvon Martin"? They also have to work with the disinterested police every day.
Also, I suspect that Zimmerman will end up like Dan White, who assassinated Harvey Milk. Being a killer who gets acquitted may mean you are found innocent but it doesn't mean anybody will want to spend time with you or let you anywhere near their family or workplace.
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Also, I suspect that Zimmerman will end up like Dan White, who assassinated Harvey Milk. Being a killer who gets acquitted may mean you are found innocent but it doesn't mean anybody will want to spend time with you or let you anywhere near their family or workplace.
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Gary Younge in the Guardian: "Open Season on Black Boys After a Verdict Like This."
posted by spitbull at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
The entire acquittal came from the fact that there was no eyewitness evidence proving that Zimmerman had started or escalated the direct confrontation. Because, the eyewitness was, y'know, shot dead by Zimmerman.
A possible way around this in the future that's only extremely terrifying.
I kind of agree with the advice above for brown people to go out and legally acquire a gun for self defense.
That depends on how big a fan you are of being shot dead by cops.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
A possible way around this in the future that's only extremely terrifying.
I kind of agree with the advice above for brown people to go out and legally acquire a gun for self defense.
That depends on how big a fan you are of being shot dead by cops.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
chunking express: Honestly, yes.
The fact that Zimmerman seems to have gotten off scot-free for some fairly reprehensible behavior probably says we have problems with our legal/judicial system. Just calling Florida names doesn't do anything to help fix that or even identify where the problems are.
If we're going to prevent things like this from happening in the future, we need to do things like modify self-defense/stand-your-ground laws, or change the culture surrounding vigilantism and gun usage.
posted by thegears at 8:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The fact that Zimmerman seems to have gotten off scot-free for some fairly reprehensible behavior probably says we have problems with our legal/judicial system. Just calling Florida names doesn't do anything to help fix that or even identify where the problems are.
If we're going to prevent things like this from happening in the future, we need to do things like modify self-defense/stand-your-ground laws, or change the culture surrounding vigilantism and gun usage.
posted by thegears at 8:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
it doesn't mean anybody will want to spend time with you
I think you are underestimating the fact that he's considered somewhat of a hero by racist people and gun nuts. They've been trading emails showing rapper The Game (who has face tattoos and is like 6'5" and 34) saying that he is Trayvon, and god bless Zimmerman for standing his ground.
posted by cell divide at 8:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think you are underestimating the fact that he's considered somewhat of a hero by racist people and gun nuts. They've been trading emails showing rapper The Game (who has face tattoos and is like 6'5" and 34) saying that he is Trayvon, and god bless Zimmerman for standing his ground.
posted by cell divide at 8:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The entire acquittal came from the fact that there was no eyewitness evidence proving that Zimmerman had started or escalated the direct confrontation. Because, the eyewitness was, y'know, shot dead by Zimmerman.
I can see how that would protect him from Murder Twp. But this is open-and-shut Manslaughter. The jury apparently agreed with the Defense that if you have smoked pot in the last 30 days, you deserve to die.
posted by spaltavian at 8:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can see how that would protect him from Murder Twp. But this is open-and-shut Manslaughter. The jury apparently agreed with the Defense that if you have smoked pot in the last 30 days, you deserve to die.
posted by spaltavian at 8:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The fact he got off scot free implies systemic problems that go far beyond the legal system.
posted by chunking express at 8:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by chunking express at 8:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
If we're going to prevent things like this from happening in the future, we need to do things like modify self-defense/stand-your-ground laws, or change the culture surrounding vigilantism and gun usage.
Let's also not excuse the media + Hollywood, who have been pushing the scary black youth narrative for decades if not longer. That partially explains how Trayvon to be victimized after his murder, as so many people think they have an idea about exactly how young black men act, what their motives are, and how violent and sociopathic they are. No way to get in the jurors minds, but if they are like most white Americans, they've been bombarded with the image of the scary thuggish black teen basically their entire lives, and from popular entertainment to the serious nightly news.
posted by cell divide at 8:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Let's also not excuse the media + Hollywood, who have been pushing the scary black youth narrative for decades if not longer. That partially explains how Trayvon to be victimized after his murder, as so many people think they have an idea about exactly how young black men act, what their motives are, and how violent and sociopathic they are. No way to get in the jurors minds, but if they are like most white Americans, they've been bombarded with the image of the scary thuggish black teen basically their entire lives, and from popular entertainment to the serious nightly news.
posted by cell divide at 8:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
You're not even self-consistent in your representation to MetaFilter for all of Germany and, oh, I have approximately zero fucking interest in the enlightened vigor of German self-defense theory.
You either did not read what I wrote or you're lying.
This thing is totally uncontroversial in law (university professors, judges, etc.), but laymen find it strange and oftentimes even a bad idea.
posted by 2uo at 8:33 AM on July 14, 2013
You either did not read what I wrote or you're lying.
This thing is totally uncontroversial in law (university professors, judges, etc.), but laymen find it strange and oftentimes even a bad idea.
posted by 2uo at 8:33 AM on July 14, 2013
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Let's leave the discussion of German law for another day, please. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Other things totally uncontroversial: not shooting children.
posted by chunking express at 8:36 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by chunking express at 8:36 AM on July 14, 2013
Couldn't the prosecution have sought some gross negligence manslaughter or similar charge in this case? Does anyone have insight into why they couldn't or at least didn't?
It's pretty clear that they had no shot at any murder (or murder-based manslaughter) conviction. But is there anything in the Florida statutes that makes it illegal to create a situation (through consciously-made poor decisions) that results in the death of a person?
That sounds like classic manslaughter, but in this particular case, it seems to have been used so narrowly as to have essentially been murder lite.
posted by graphnerd at 8:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's pretty clear that they had no shot at any murder (or murder-based manslaughter) conviction. But is there anything in the Florida statutes that makes it illegal to create a situation (through consciously-made poor decisions) that results in the death of a person?
That sounds like classic manslaughter, but in this particular case, it seems to have been used so narrowly as to have essentially been murder lite.
posted by graphnerd at 8:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
So it's not that it's better to shoot someone than to shoot into the air, but that there are acceptable circumstances to shoot someone (self defense) whereas there are no acceptable circumstances to just shoot into the air in an attempt to scare someone because that's not what guns are for.
But what I don't understand is that she was not convicted of making threats or misusing a gun, but of attempted murder with a mandatory 20 year sentence.
They basically said she couldn't claim self-defense because she didn't aim at him, but she was still trying to kill him, despite not aiming at him. How does this even make logical sense, let alone moral sense?
posted by jb at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
But what I don't understand is that she was not convicted of making threats or misusing a gun, but of attempted murder with a mandatory 20 year sentence.
They basically said she couldn't claim self-defense because she didn't aim at him, but she was still trying to kill him, despite not aiming at him. How does this even make logical sense, let alone moral sense?
posted by jb at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I feel sick to my stomach.
posted by agregoli at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
it's almost certain that Trayvon would've been charged as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to death.
Martin would not have even gotten a trial. He would have been railroaded into pleading out to 2nd Degree Murder rather than standing trial for 1st and probably losing.
posted by milarepa at 8:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
Martin would not have even gotten a trial. He would have been railroaded into pleading out to 2nd Degree Murder rather than standing trial for 1st and probably losing.
posted by milarepa at 8:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
Maybe the riots the media are so psyched for will turn up today.
posted by Artw at 8:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Bruce Cockburn:
If I had a rocket launcher....
posted by spitbull at 8:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If I had a rocket launcher....
posted by spitbull at 8:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted, let's not expand this discussion to school busing incidents elsewhere in the country, there is plenty to talk about with just this case. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:49 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:49 AM on July 14, 2013
There is a growing call for a civil suit against Zimmerman. Not sure it'd do much in terms of telling the rest of the nation this is wrong, but damn I wanna see it.
It sounds like Zimmerman has nothing that Martin's parents would be able to take, so it may not be worth it, financially or emotionally, to go through such a suit if it's going to be a purely symbolic act.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:50 AM on July 14, 2013
It sounds like Zimmerman has nothing that Martin's parents would be able to take, so it may not be worth it, financially or emotionally, to go through such a suit if it's going to be a purely symbolic act.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:50 AM on July 14, 2013
I beg you. I urge you. Please use this the next time some woman on metafilter says she had someone following her who got close and she struck the first blow. When the woman says she watched some stranger follow her leading to her house, and he got close, and she punched him rather than waiting for the stranger to attack, please interject with "he had a lawful right to follow you".
See, the thing is, I have been this woman. I have been this woman who has had men following me in a car and then getting out on foot to follow me. I have been this woman who had men following me in a car and then getting out on foot to follow me in the middle of a rape epidemic. And do you know what I bone-deep knew? That I couldn't touch a single one until they touched me, without going to jail myself. No matter how much they were scaring me - and they were. And my friends - some of whom post on Metafilter - were outraged that I had the idea of defending myself physically and violently the instant I was physically touched.
Some of my fear also goes into my defense of Zimmerman. Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial. So I have to think, every day: how could I manage to defend myself without injuring someone? Because I don't live in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, and I wish every day that I did.
And yes. Strangers have a lawful right to follow me. And all I can do is call the cops. Or run into a nearby bar and beg for help from other men. Because no - I cannot attack them first, middle, or even last, without potentially being up on trial and risking going to jail and losing my kid. And that, that is an awful thing to live with.
posted by corb at 8:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
See, the thing is, I have been this woman. I have been this woman who has had men following me in a car and then getting out on foot to follow me. I have been this woman who had men following me in a car and then getting out on foot to follow me in the middle of a rape epidemic. And do you know what I bone-deep knew? That I couldn't touch a single one until they touched me, without going to jail myself. No matter how much they were scaring me - and they were. And my friends - some of whom post on Metafilter - were outraged that I had the idea of defending myself physically and violently the instant I was physically touched.
Some of my fear also goes into my defense of Zimmerman. Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial. So I have to think, every day: how could I manage to defend myself without injuring someone? Because I don't live in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, and I wish every day that I did.
And yes. Strangers have a lawful right to follow me. And all I can do is call the cops. Or run into a nearby bar and beg for help from other men. Because no - I cannot attack them first, middle, or even last, without potentially being up on trial and risking going to jail and losing my kid. And that, that is an awful thing to live with.
posted by corb at 8:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
"Bruce Cockburn:
If I had a rocket launcher...."
A great song. But Bruce Cockburn is generally awesome.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013
If I had a rocket launcher...."
A great song. But Bruce Cockburn is generally awesome.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013
I kind of agree with the advice above for brown people to go out and legally acquire a gun for self defense.
...
Peaceful, lawful resistance always works.
...?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013
...
Peaceful, lawful resistance always works.
...?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013
It sounds like Zimmerman has nothing that Martin's parents would be able to take, so it may not be worth it, financially or emotionally, to go through such a suit if it's going to be a purely symbolic act.
Zimmerman has the ability to profit from all this attention. He can write books, sell his story rights, etc. So it wouldn't be purely symbolic.
posted by Green With You at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Zimmerman has the ability to profit from all this attention. He can write books, sell his story rights, etc. So it wouldn't be purely symbolic.
posted by Green With You at 8:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
So it's not that it's better to shoot someone than to shoot into the air, but that there are acceptable circumstances to shoot someone (self defense) whereas there are no acceptable circumstances to just shoot into the air in an attempt to scare someone because that's not what guns are for.
Even though this is bullshit. But I think they're acting on the principle that these warning shots could go wild and hurt other people because people won't check their backstop.
posted by corb at 8:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Even though this is bullshit. But I think they're acting on the principle that these warning shots could go wild and hurt other people because people won't check their backstop.
posted by corb at 8:55 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
There is a growing call for a civil suit against Zimmerman. Not sure it'd do much in terms of telling the rest of the nation this is wrong, but damn I wanna see it.
It sounds like Zimmerman has nothing that Martin's parents would be able to take, so it may not be worth it, financially or emotionally, to go through such a suit if it's going to be a purely symbolic act.
If it keeps Zimmerman from becoming a Joe The Plumber-style public figure (by essentially garnishing any "honorarium" he may be able to collect for speaking to people who want to hear any bullshit he may want to spout), then I'm for it.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
It sounds like Zimmerman has nothing that Martin's parents would be able to take, so it may not be worth it, financially or emotionally, to go through such a suit if it's going to be a purely symbolic act.
If it keeps Zimmerman from becoming a Joe The Plumber-style public figure (by essentially garnishing any "honorarium" he may be able to collect for speaking to people who want to hear any bullshit he may want to spout), then I'm for it.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
I don't have the motivation or energy to wade through Florida law and the instructions in great detail. I can understand how legally something can be deemed okay even though it's so obvious that some sort of grave injustice occured. I was on a jury where we found someone not guilty of assault when he slashed someone in the head with a hockey stick. An injury that left permanent damage. There was no doubt that the guy hit him. No doubt that the conflict incurred.
I learned tons about the difference between 'legal' assault and what I would characterize as someone assaulting someone. I would still say that guy 'assaulted' that other guy. We couldn't however find the guy guilty of legal assault because the law and instructions were specific. In this case the evidence had to meet, beyond any reasonable doubt, 4 specific criteria that made it legal assault. If there was doubt on any of the 4 it was not guilty. The trial was 5 days. We deliberated for 12 hours. Two criteria were met without any question. The other two were iffy. We went over and over it for hours but no matter how much some of might have felt that some punishment for what had happened was warranted, the circumstances we were given as evidence did not prove all 4 criteria being met.
It was a lesson for me in the interaction of law and the idea of justice interact. I felt good about the verdict we gave in the sense that we followed what the law said. We did the best we could with what we were given to work with. Even after all these years I still don't feel that 'justice' was served in a moral sense. It was right to come back with a not guilty in this case but justice in the larger sense wasn't served in my non legally defined mind.
Laws and how they are written do make such a difference. That, as many have commented on, may be the case here. In the letter of how the law is written Zimmerman may indeed be not guilty. I don't however have any real urge to comb through it in detail and figure it out for myself though. In this case it doesn't matter.
What matters to me in this case is that regardless of the lettered law details the situation happened in the first place because Tray, as his family refers to him was guilty of walking around while black.
That's it.
The 'law' may have been served properly in this case. Justice hasn't.
posted by Jalliah at 8:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [30 favorites]
I suspect it won't be long before Zimmerman pisses away his public speaker status by doing SOMETHING stupid, he's just that kind of guy.
posted by Artw at 8:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think Zimmerman's attorney, Mr. If-Zimmerman-Were-Black-He'd-Never-have-Been-Charged O'Mara, is much more likely than his client to be the next right-wing media star.
posted by Eyebeams at 8:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebeams at 8:59 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial.
How many court cases involve a situation like this, instead of a Stand Your Ground fiasco that results in someone's death? I live in a state with a modified SYG law and it is extremely, extremely scary to consider the implications.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:00 AM on July 14, 2013
How many court cases involve a situation like this, instead of a Stand Your Ground fiasco that results in someone's death? I live in a state with a modified SYG law and it is extremely, extremely scary to consider the implications.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:00 AM on July 14, 2013
Twenty years for shooting into the air when no one got hurt is completely insane.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Some of my fear also goes into my defense of Zimmerman. Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped.
Bear in mind that there is no evidence that Martin was the aggressor in the physical confrontation beyond Zimmerman's testimony. Witnesses saw a scuffle, although reports about who had the upper hand are unclear or conflicting.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Bear in mind that there is no evidence that Martin was the aggressor in the physical confrontation beyond Zimmerman's testimony. Witnesses saw a scuffle, although reports about who had the upper hand are unclear or conflicting.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Strangers have a lawful right to follow me. And all I can do is call the cops. Or run into a nearby bar and beg for help from other men. Because no - I cannot attack them first, middle, or even last, without potentially being up on trial and risking going to jail and losing my kid. And that, that is an awful thing to live with.
but things like martial arts that don't involve guns and frankly having a fear of rape being used to justify Zimmerman's actions is one of the foulest things I've read on this site.
posted by angrycat at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
but things like martial arts that don't involve guns and frankly having a fear of rape being used to justify Zimmerman's actions is one of the foulest things I've read on this site.
posted by angrycat at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
what I'm saying is that if more people showed up and exercised their rights, then the gun law regime would no longer be the sole domain of the white gun nut.
There are plenty of people who already own guns and are sane about it. The preponderance of white gun nuts speaking up is not due to a dearth of sane gun owners; the preponderance of white gun nuts speaking up is due to the sane gun owners not speaking up. We do not need more people with guns, we need more people who already have guns speaking out about how to be responsible about gun ownership.
Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial.
I understand that this is the way the law is. Do you honestly still feel that this is the way the law should be, though?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
There are plenty of people who already own guns and are sane about it. The preponderance of white gun nuts speaking up is not due to a dearth of sane gun owners; the preponderance of white gun nuts speaking up is due to the sane gun owners not speaking up. We do not need more people with guns, we need more people who already have guns speaking out about how to be responsible about gun ownership.
Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial.
I understand that this is the way the law is. Do you honestly still feel that this is the way the law should be, though?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
(and I know about rape fear, believe me. Dig into my comment history if you're curious)
posted by angrycat at 9:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 9:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
"... If we're going to prevent things like this from happening in the future, we need to do things like modify self-defense/stand-your-ground laws, or change the culture surrounding vigilantism and gun usage."
posted by thegears at 11:29 AM on July 14
In fairness to Florida, Jeb Bush's 1999 "Use a Gun and You're Done" law was an attempt to reign in gun usage with fairly stiff sentencing enhancements for even showing a gun in the commission of a crime. Zimmerman was subject to these sentencing enhancements, too, and they are mentioned prominently in any Florida required training course that you take for your concealed carry permit, as far as I know. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, or murder, the fact that he used his gun in killing Martin would have resulted in a far stiffer penalty than he'd have got, had he killed Martin with a knife, or an impact weapon.
Some say that the 2005 SYG law amendment was the Legislature's attempt to offer reasonable legal cover to those who believe they've actually used a gun in self-defense, after toughening sentencing for gun use in crimes. In its intent to provide an early out from the crushing burdens of defending oneself against the entire weight of the State in clear cases of self-defense, it's less a pro-gun measure, than a protection of the ordinary lives of real people, who face home invasions, car jackings, and robbery, and meet those threats with fists, baseball bats, knives, hatchets, and even guns.
But these kinds of laws, in both their aims and effects, are necessarily balancing acts, and to some extent, on-going experiments. In a state like Florida, with large populations of older people, rural people, big cities with major crime situations, and many minorities, we're always going to have larger pools of self-interests than more homogenous states like Vermont or South Dakota. And that's going to mean that simple solutions, implemented one-by-one, are always going to result in unintended consequences.
But I don't know that there is any real alternative. So, we just keep trying, with every new election, and every new Governor and Legislature, and in our courts, and on our streets. Many among us grieve the loss of life, the injury, and the insult we do one another, in daily life, and we look to be instructed by it all, when we can. And we do see that violent crime is slowly going down in our major cities, and that people don't fight dogs much, anymore. Being a better society is a hard, long pull, and I think you have to stand back quite aways, sometimes, to rightly see the wheels of justice turn in their operation, rather than just report their clockwork like stops, starts, and sometimes seeming reversals, which are sometimes nothing more than the clockwork's ticks of discrete operation. One case of criminal law does not a society make.
posted by paulsc at 9:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by thegears at 11:29 AM on July 14
In fairness to Florida, Jeb Bush's 1999 "Use a Gun and You're Done" law was an attempt to reign in gun usage with fairly stiff sentencing enhancements for even showing a gun in the commission of a crime. Zimmerman was subject to these sentencing enhancements, too, and they are mentioned prominently in any Florida required training course that you take for your concealed carry permit, as far as I know. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, or murder, the fact that he used his gun in killing Martin would have resulted in a far stiffer penalty than he'd have got, had he killed Martin with a knife, or an impact weapon.
Some say that the 2005 SYG law amendment was the Legislature's attempt to offer reasonable legal cover to those who believe they've actually used a gun in self-defense, after toughening sentencing for gun use in crimes. In its intent to provide an early out from the crushing burdens of defending oneself against the entire weight of the State in clear cases of self-defense, it's less a pro-gun measure, than a protection of the ordinary lives of real people, who face home invasions, car jackings, and robbery, and meet those threats with fists, baseball bats, knives, hatchets, and even guns.
But these kinds of laws, in both their aims and effects, are necessarily balancing acts, and to some extent, on-going experiments. In a state like Florida, with large populations of older people, rural people, big cities with major crime situations, and many minorities, we're always going to have larger pools of self-interests than more homogenous states like Vermont or South Dakota. And that's going to mean that simple solutions, implemented one-by-one, are always going to result in unintended consequences.
But I don't know that there is any real alternative. So, we just keep trying, with every new election, and every new Governor and Legislature, and in our courts, and on our streets. Many among us grieve the loss of life, the injury, and the insult we do one another, in daily life, and we look to be instructed by it all, when we can. And we do see that violent crime is slowly going down in our major cities, and that people don't fight dogs much, anymore. Being a better society is a hard, long pull, and I think you have to stand back quite aways, sometimes, to rightly see the wheels of justice turn in their operation, rather than just report their clockwork like stops, starts, and sometimes seeming reversals, which are sometimes nothing more than the clockwork's ticks of discrete operation. One case of criminal law does not a society make.
posted by paulsc at 9:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Some of my fear also goes into my defense of Zimmerman. Because I know, know to my bones, know, that if some guy on the street physically assaults me for whatever reason, even if he is trying to rape me, I don't have the ability to maim or kill him in response, even if it is the only way I can save myself from being beaten or raped. If I do, I will be up on trial. So I have to think, every day: how could I manage to defend myself without injuring someone? Because I don't live in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, and I wish every day that I did.
First things first, you are continuing to ignore the context of what happened that night. You didn't instigate those situations, you don't go out looking for trouble, you didn't take it upon yourself to be an arbiter of justice, and presumably you weren't making judgement calls about their behavior that were impossible to discern. All of that is what Zimmerman did, and that doesn't even get into the very real possibility that Zimmerman started the fight. That changes the entire situation, and quite frankly I'm shocked and rather appalled that you tried to conflate the two. Second, there are any of a number of ways that don't involve maiming or killing, and don't require a firearm. Which brings me to my last point, which is that you seem to want the tool rather than the outcome. There's no hard proof that SYG is helping in these sorts of crimes, and even the soft proof includes caveats that the risks to innocents are increasingly outweighing the safety of the potential victims. Violent crimes were falling before SYG laws were ever passed, in Florida and elsewhere, to the point where there is no real statistical proof that SYG was a contributing factor. And yet, you made it your mission here to defend it, and Zimmerman's state of mind (while simultaneously attacking Martin's), to the point of saying some very offensive things.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
First things first, you are continuing to ignore the context of what happened that night. You didn't instigate those situations, you don't go out looking for trouble, you didn't take it upon yourself to be an arbiter of justice, and presumably you weren't making judgement calls about their behavior that were impossible to discern. All of that is what Zimmerman did, and that doesn't even get into the very real possibility that Zimmerman started the fight. That changes the entire situation, and quite frankly I'm shocked and rather appalled that you tried to conflate the two. Second, there are any of a number of ways that don't involve maiming or killing, and don't require a firearm. Which brings me to my last point, which is that you seem to want the tool rather than the outcome. There's no hard proof that SYG is helping in these sorts of crimes, and even the soft proof includes caveats that the risks to innocents are increasingly outweighing the safety of the potential victims. Violent crimes were falling before SYG laws were ever passed, in Florida and elsewhere, to the point where there is no real statistical proof that SYG was a contributing factor. And yet, you made it your mission here to defend it, and Zimmerman's state of mind (while simultaneously attacking Martin's), to the point of saying some very offensive things.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
Mod note: As ever, do not make this thread all about one user's opinions even if you think they are wrong opinions. Make the thread be the good discussion you want to see.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:16 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Trayvon wasn't "following" anyone. The analogy is flawed.
posted by spitbull at 9:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 9:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Bear in mind that there is no evidence that Martin was the aggressor in the physical confrontation beyond Zimmerman's testimony. Witnesses saw a scuffle, although reports about who had the upper hand are unclear or conflicting
Except the numerous physical injuries Zimmerman had, right? That's considered evidence that Trayvon was the aggressor, sadly.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:19 AM on July 14, 2013
Except the numerous physical injuries Zimmerman had, right? That's considered evidence that Trayvon was the aggressor, sadly.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:19 AM on July 14, 2013
Except the numerous physical injuries Zimmerman had, right? That's considered evidence that Trayvon was the aggressor, sadly.
The injuries that he had the next day after he was allowed to go home without having his condition documented.
posted by winna at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
The injuries that he had the next day after he was allowed to go home without having his condition documented.
posted by winna at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
Zimmerman's injuries are evidence Trayvon defended himself from a man with a gun who was following him. They prove nothing more
posted by spitbull at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Much has been made in the media of the young Martin having called George Zimmerman a "creepy cracker" when he was on the phone with his girlfriend. The emphasis in the media has been on the word "cracker", and Is It A Racist Term?? - Was Trayvon Martin a Racist??, etc. To me, the salient word is "creepy". I have two teen-aged kids. If one of them uses the word "creepy" about an adult, it is in the context of "I felt like I had to get away" not "I am going to stand here and confront them". When a teenager calls an adult creepy, it is because they feel threatened.
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
The injuries that he had the next day after he was allowed to go home without having his condition documented.
And that were not reflected in offensive injuries on Martin.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
And that were not reflected in offensive injuries on Martin.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
It is hard to believe; but entirely possible that Zimmerman wacked his own head a few times after the event; up to and including slamming his nose against the pavement.
But I also have a hard time picturing him with his gun upholstered and following Trayvon with it barrel pointed at Trayvon.
posted by buzzman at 9:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
But I also have a hard time picturing him with his gun upholstered and following Trayvon with it barrel pointed at Trayvon.
posted by buzzman at 9:23 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I understand that this is the way the law is. Do you honestly still feel that this is the way the law should be, though?
No - I don't think that's the way the law should be, and that's why it genuinely frightens me to see so many people wanting to take away my protections. I feel safer in Florida than I do in NYC. I mean, this is not a hypothetical - when the Park Slope rapist was going around assaulting women in my neighborhood, I paused to look up the laws and to find that I was not protected at all - that I had a "duty to retreat" even from someone who was stronger, or faster, than me, or maybe two of them, no matter what was happening.
It's easy to say "well Zimmerman was following Martin", but people aren't talking about making Stand Your Ground more robust so that Martin would have been able to legally fight Zimmerman, which is something I might support, depending on how it was written. People are talking about doing away with it entirely. They're posting lists of states that have SYG/Castle Doctrine laws - states I personally feel safer in - and arguing that it's time to do away with them. And that is scary.
posted by corb at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
No - I don't think that's the way the law should be, and that's why it genuinely frightens me to see so many people wanting to take away my protections. I feel safer in Florida than I do in NYC. I mean, this is not a hypothetical - when the Park Slope rapist was going around assaulting women in my neighborhood, I paused to look up the laws and to find that I was not protected at all - that I had a "duty to retreat" even from someone who was stronger, or faster, than me, or maybe two of them, no matter what was happening.
It's easy to say "well Zimmerman was following Martin", but people aren't talking about making Stand Your Ground more robust so that Martin would have been able to legally fight Zimmerman, which is something I might support, depending on how it was written. People are talking about doing away with it entirely. They're posting lists of states that have SYG/Castle Doctrine laws - states I personally feel safer in - and arguing that it's time to do away with them. And that is scary.
posted by corb at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I was floored, said there was no way the guy would walk from this.
The first witness that I saw couldn't read the letter she'd supposedly written (and she was extremely hostile), both mothers claimed the voice on the call was their son's voice, Travons's dad said he didn't know whose voice it was, audio experts weren't allowed to testify because there wasn't enough of a clip to evaluate, one witness for the prosecution claimed Travon was beating Martin in a MMA "ground and pound" style fight, etc.
The standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn't meet the standard.
I didn't think Zimmerman was in an danger of going to prison at any point until the manslaughter charge was introduced, since juries often like to send a message, often don't think good people end up before a jury, and figure if there are multiple charges then he's probably guilty of something.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The first witness that I saw couldn't read the letter she'd supposedly written (and she was extremely hostile), both mothers claimed the voice on the call was their son's voice, Travons's dad said he didn't know whose voice it was, audio experts weren't allowed to testify because there wasn't enough of a clip to evaluate, one witness for the prosecution claimed Travon was beating Martin in a MMA "ground and pound" style fight, etc.
The standard is reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn't meet the standard.
I didn't think Zimmerman was in an danger of going to prison at any point until the manslaughter charge was introduced, since juries often like to send a message, often don't think good people end up before a jury, and figure if there are multiple charges then he's probably guilty of something.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
And was there ever a more implausible story by a criminal defendant than Zimmerman's claiming that he got out of his truck to check a street sign, not to confront one of the "punks" who "always get away with it"?
posted by Eyebeams at 9:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Eyebeams at 9:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Trayvon had injuries on his knuckles, as well as the gunshot wound. Nothing else, reportedly.
I am upset about this too, and am defriending horrible racist people on Facebook left and right, but these injuries to Zimmerman are the "evidence" people are talking about when they say Trayvon was the aggressor.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:28 AM on July 14, 2013
I am upset about this too, and am defriending horrible racist people on Facebook left and right, but these injuries to Zimmerman are the "evidence" people are talking about when they say Trayvon was the aggressor.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:28 AM on July 14, 2013
No - I don't think that's the way the law should be, and that's why it genuinely frightens me to see so many people wanting to take away my protections. I feel safer in Florida than I do in NYC.
[...]
It's easy to say "well Zimmerman was following Martin", but people aren't talking about making Stand Your Ground more robust so that Martin would have been able to legally fight Zimmerman, which is something I might support, depending on how it was written. People are talking about doing away with it entirely. They're posting lists of states that have SYG/Castle Doctrine laws - states I personally feel safer in - and arguing that it's time to do away with them. And that is scary.
Your feelings on relative safety are not borne out by any substantive evidence. You might feel safer in Florida than in NYC, and you, singular, might actually be, but there is very little out there that proves that the population as a whole is safer. And even that proof is questionable at best, so any accusations of evil people wanting to take away your protections is unsupported speculation for now.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
[...]
It's easy to say "well Zimmerman was following Martin", but people aren't talking about making Stand Your Ground more robust so that Martin would have been able to legally fight Zimmerman, which is something I might support, depending on how it was written. People are talking about doing away with it entirely. They're posting lists of states that have SYG/Castle Doctrine laws - states I personally feel safer in - and arguing that it's time to do away with them. And that is scary.
Your feelings on relative safety are not borne out by any substantive evidence. You might feel safer in Florida than in NYC, and you, singular, might actually be, but there is very little out there that proves that the population as a whole is safer. And even that proof is questionable at best, so any accusations of evil people wanting to take away your protections is unsupported speculation for now.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
but people aren't talking about making Stand Your Ground more robust so that Martin would have been able to legally fight Zimmerman,
Right. I am seeing this through the red mist that means I am going to walk away from the thread now, and also means I may not be parsing this correctly. But as I read it it is not rooted in reality. Meaning, Martin did have the right. He just didn't have a gun.
Also, I wonder: I am not asking you to be silent. But you must know that a lot of people are hurting over the verdict. A lot of people are in despair over it. Your coming in here with a rape analogy and making statements that don't really seem to be rooted in reality (like the above comment) are really insensitive. Do you see that, at all?
posted by angrycat at 9:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
Right. I am seeing this through the red mist that means I am going to walk away from the thread now, and also means I may not be parsing this correctly. But as I read it it is not rooted in reality. Meaning, Martin did have the right. He just didn't have a gun.
Also, I wonder: I am not asking you to be silent. But you must know that a lot of people are hurting over the verdict. A lot of people are in despair over it. Your coming in here with a rape analogy and making statements that don't really seem to be rooted in reality (like the above comment) are really insensitive. Do you see that, at all?
posted by angrycat at 9:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
The gun question isn't: are there cases where having a gun is better than having no gun. That is not a debatable point; the answer is yes, in some very limited circumstances having or using a gun would be better than the alternative.
The gun question is also not: overall and with all ramifications considered, are outcomes with guns better than outcomes without. No debate either: the answer is no, guns make things worse for society.
The question is: why do we continue to let fear guide our policies?
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The gun question is also not: overall and with all ramifications considered, are outcomes with guns better than outcomes without. No debate either: the answer is no, guns make things worse for society.
The question is: why do we continue to let fear guide our policies?
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
So is the evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin silently and Martin suddenly turned around and hit him?
posted by girlmightlive at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by girlmightlive at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2013
In my head, all I can see coming out of this is a net increase in white people with guns following and intentionally provoking non-white people into either attacking them (so they can kill the non-white people without repercussion) or into running away/being deferential so that the white people can feel superior. Until/unless a non-white person gets acquitted for shooting a white person under those conditions, of course. Which will be never.
posted by davejay at 9:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by davejay at 9:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
when they say Trayvon was the aggressor.
I know a few people who learned a hard lesson: that starting a fight doesn't mean you end up with fewer injuries, or win in the end.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I know a few people who learned a hard lesson: that starting a fight doesn't mean you end up with fewer injuries, or win in the end.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:34 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Corb wrote: And the law does not accept "following" as a legitimate provocation to a fight...
I'm clear about the requirement to prove guilt. I don't see murder or manslaughter as the relevant charges. But Zimmerman did much more that follow Martin. He got out of his car, and instigated a confrontation. It seems to me that the use of deadly force was precipitated by an act of bad judgment on Zimmerman's part. The charge ought to have been, at the very least, reckless endangerment, and Zimmerman's defense ought to have been predicated on the notion that Martin was about to commit some act of violence on somebody (other than Zimmerman). Zimmerman would need to demonstrate the exigent conditions that required his confrontation of Martin.
In many cases, a homicide committed during an illegal (or inappropriate) act is considered to be part of the illegal act. If you are robbing a store, and get in a gunfight with the cops, your stray bullet killing a bystander entitles you to have a felony manslaughter charge to added to robbery attempt. The homicide under these conditions isn't deemed an accidental death. If you are drunk and decide to do some target practice on your neighbor's car, your judgment will be part of the legal issue when you explain it to Wapner. If you decide to slow down traffic speeding down your street by standing in the middle of the road, you are not allowed to claim self-defense if you shoot the driver who honks his horn at you, even if he decided to comment on your sexual proclivities while waving the appropriate gestures out his car window.
Zimmerman's bad judgment led to Martin's death. Even if I bought his bullshit story I would consider him to be the acting agent, not the defendant, in the homicide. Even if Martin had turned out to be armed, Zimmerman still ought to have to show that he was an immediate threat to life or property.
In other news, Florida continues to be a source of wonder and awe. I believe shameful racial issues associated with that state are not the only scary items illuminated by these events.
posted by mule98J at 9:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
I'm clear about the requirement to prove guilt. I don't see murder or manslaughter as the relevant charges. But Zimmerman did much more that follow Martin. He got out of his car, and instigated a confrontation. It seems to me that the use of deadly force was precipitated by an act of bad judgment on Zimmerman's part. The charge ought to have been, at the very least, reckless endangerment, and Zimmerman's defense ought to have been predicated on the notion that Martin was about to commit some act of violence on somebody (other than Zimmerman). Zimmerman would need to demonstrate the exigent conditions that required his confrontation of Martin.
In many cases, a homicide committed during an illegal (or inappropriate) act is considered to be part of the illegal act. If you are robbing a store, and get in a gunfight with the cops, your stray bullet killing a bystander entitles you to have a felony manslaughter charge to added to robbery attempt. The homicide under these conditions isn't deemed an accidental death. If you are drunk and decide to do some target practice on your neighbor's car, your judgment will be part of the legal issue when you explain it to Wapner. If you decide to slow down traffic speeding down your street by standing in the middle of the road, you are not allowed to claim self-defense if you shoot the driver who honks his horn at you, even if he decided to comment on your sexual proclivities while waving the appropriate gestures out his car window.
Zimmerman's bad judgment led to Martin's death. Even if I bought his bullshit story I would consider him to be the acting agent, not the defendant, in the homicide. Even if Martin had turned out to be armed, Zimmerman still ought to have to show that he was an immediate threat to life or property.
In other news, Florida continues to be a source of wonder and awe. I believe shameful racial issues associated with that state are not the only scary items illuminated by these events.
posted by mule98J at 9:39 AM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Except the numerous physical injuries Zimmerman had, right? That's considered evidence that Trayvon was the aggressor, sadly.
It may be considered evidence, in the sense that a private citizen is free to consider it evidence, but it doesn't pass an evidenciary standard - it's circumstantial evidence supporting Zimmerman's testimony.
Likewise Zimmerman's lack of physical prowess - it's circumstantial evidence suggesting he would not have initiated physical combat, but it doesn't hold up as evidence in itself.
Denis Root, a public safety consultant, attested that Zimmerman was not in as good physical shape as Martin, but of course people pick fights unwisely all the time, especially when they have a gun and are not rational agents.
(Root also said that the gunshot wound could have been dealt while Martin was backing away.)
Medical examiner Valerie Rao also testified as a prosecution witness that Zimmerman's injuries were trivial - that he was not in immediate danger of death from those wounds or similar wounds - and that they were consistent with a single punch and a fall to the ground, rather than Zimmerman's account of having his head slammed against the pavement or the witness statement of Martin delivering "MMA-style" punches.
Further, none of this demonstrates conclusively that Martin initiated physical hostilities. Zimmerman could have swung and missed. Zimmerman could have attempted to pull his gun and Martin could have jumped for him to try to wrestle it away. You just have to make up your mind on the balance of probability. Or thank Heaven that you don't have to do so.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [28 favorites]
It may be considered evidence, in the sense that a private citizen is free to consider it evidence, but it doesn't pass an evidenciary standard - it's circumstantial evidence supporting Zimmerman's testimony.
Likewise Zimmerman's lack of physical prowess - it's circumstantial evidence suggesting he would not have initiated physical combat, but it doesn't hold up as evidence in itself.
Denis Root, a public safety consultant, attested that Zimmerman was not in as good physical shape as Martin, but of course people pick fights unwisely all the time, especially when they have a gun and are not rational agents.
(Root also said that the gunshot wound could have been dealt while Martin was backing away.)
Medical examiner Valerie Rao also testified as a prosecution witness that Zimmerman's injuries were trivial - that he was not in immediate danger of death from those wounds or similar wounds - and that they were consistent with a single punch and a fall to the ground, rather than Zimmerman's account of having his head slammed against the pavement or the witness statement of Martin delivering "MMA-style" punches.
Further, none of this demonstrates conclusively that Martin initiated physical hostilities. Zimmerman could have swung and missed. Zimmerman could have attempted to pull his gun and Martin could have jumped for him to try to wrestle it away. You just have to make up your mind on the balance of probability. Or thank Heaven that you don't have to do so.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [28 favorites]
So much missing data; up to and including the knuckle injuries... scraping injuries? Frontal injuries; perhaps from blows that missed Zimmerman and went straight into the pavement?
I'd think that like an old Quincy episode; the straight on injuries would match the pavement pattern that was hit. Anything of a scrape and drag -could- have been done after the fact; -or- could have been glancing blows on the pavement.
DNA under whose nails or knuckles or where? Whose blood and where? I'd like to think the courtroom covered some of this; but I have not seen it in any media.
And all these people, in an area of repeated crime; does nobody talk to their neighbors? Pay attention outside their windows? Cameras? Nothing? The neighborhood seems so disconnected with itself no wonder it has a crime problem.
The entire incident is a perfect storm of idiocy. Ultimately; one person was armed; and the other is not around to give their side of the story. .
posted by buzzman at 9:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'd think that like an old Quincy episode; the straight on injuries would match the pavement pattern that was hit. Anything of a scrape and drag -could- have been done after the fact; -or- could have been glancing blows on the pavement.
DNA under whose nails or knuckles or where? Whose blood and where? I'd like to think the courtroom covered some of this; but I have not seen it in any media.
And all these people, in an area of repeated crime; does nobody talk to their neighbors? Pay attention outside their windows? Cameras? Nothing? The neighborhood seems so disconnected with itself no wonder it has a crime problem.
The entire incident is a perfect storm of idiocy. Ultimately; one person was armed; and the other is not around to give their side of the story. .
posted by buzzman at 9:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
DNA under whose nails or knuckles or where? Whose blood and where? I'd like to think the courtroom covered some of this; but I have not seen it in any media.
Someone, I think it was the person who performed the autopsy, testified that Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Someone, I think it was the person who performed the autopsy, testified that Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I just watched a BBC report about the verdict. I've been following this thread just horrified that it is possible to legally follow a child because you "thought he might be part of a gang", confront him, and use any (alleged) resistance from him to claim self-defence and shoot him dead. It pleased me that the news anchor, cutting to the reporter said, "bottom line, this is about race, isn't it?" and she said yes. Because it is. Because the reason he thought Trayvon was part of a gang was because he was black, end of story. I wonder how many white kids fell unremarked under his glance as he looked for potential threats.
At the end of the report it showed Trayvon's cousin who spoke very movingly, I thought, sounding not angry, just despairing. "Sometimes things in life just happen. But they're not fair." I'm sorry for his family, for Americans who are shocked and not shocked and appalled at this verdict. And I'm sorry for America, because like others I look from the outside at the US justice system in relation to African-Americans and I think "It's not fair." And all Americans deserve better.
posted by billiebee at 9:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
At the end of the report it showed Trayvon's cousin who spoke very movingly, I thought, sounding not angry, just despairing. "Sometimes things in life just happen. But they're not fair." I'm sorry for his family, for Americans who are shocked and not shocked and appalled at this verdict. And I'm sorry for America, because like others I look from the outside at the US justice system in relation to African-Americans and I think "It's not fair." And all Americans deserve better.
posted by billiebee at 9:46 AM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
running order squabble thanks: thank you for your wonderful comment! I am seeing a lot of people on Facebook argue that since Trayvon had injuries on his knuckles and Zimmerman had numerous injuries to his face, this meant that Zimmerman was somehow in the right in shooting Trayvon, in fear for his life. This all comes from the DiMaio testimony, I think. I was just kind of wondering why that testimony wasn't being discussed here.
I am getting real tired of all this "right to follow" bullshit I keep seeing. Anyway, I got my answer. Again, danke.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:48 AM on July 14, 2013
I am getting real tired of all this "right to follow" bullshit I keep seeing. Anyway, I got my answer. Again, danke.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 9:48 AM on July 14, 2013
corb, Zimmerman had been convicted months ago after he had been (hypothetically) arrested for giving Martin, would you be outraged at the verdict, or would you just be giving us a world-weary, "well, life is unfair and sometimes it causes people like Zimmerman to go to jail" ?Because I'm wondering if this is more about your outrage that people are lamenting the unfairness of this or whether you actually believe there is a principle at stake in ensuring that violent men like Zimmerman go free.
posted by deanc at 9:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by deanc at 9:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I have a cousin who isn't white, who grew up in Florida. His mother (who is white) still lives there. She called him the minute the verdict came in, and begged him to cut his hair, which he wears in a wild afro. He respectfully declined.
She said "Aren't you afraid of getting profiled?"
He said "No, mom, I'm sick of getting profiled. There's nothing I can do to stop it, not cutting my hair, not wearing a suit, not bowing and scraping all the time. So fuck 'em. This is how I roll."
posted by KathrynT at 9:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [68 favorites]
She said "Aren't you afraid of getting profiled?"
He said "No, mom, I'm sick of getting profiled. There's nothing I can do to stop it, not cutting my hair, not wearing a suit, not bowing and scraping all the time. So fuck 'em. This is how I roll."
posted by KathrynT at 9:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [68 favorites]
Maybe the riots the media are so psyched for will turn up today.
Why the Latest Zimmerman Race Riot Conspiracy Theory Is the Dumbest Yet
posted by homunculus at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why the Latest Zimmerman Race Riot Conspiracy Theory Is the Dumbest Yet
posted by homunculus at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Couldn't the prosecution have sought some gross negligence manslaughter or similar charge in this case? Does anyone have insight into why they couldn't or at least didn't?
They did; Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
posted by spaltavian at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2013
They did; Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
posted by spaltavian at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2013
SkylitDrawl: Right - DiMao and Rao basically disagreed on the likely severity of the impacts. And of course it is not an exact science - Rao, under cross-examination, acknowledged that the injuries could have been a result of a number of (sc. weaker or poorly-aimed) blows, and Root and DiMao disagreed about the possible positions of the shooter and victim - DiMao said the gunshot trajectory was consistent with the victim leaning over the shooter.
Regardless, those are still arguments about the progress of the fight rather than its origins. Legally, however, it was pretty much impossible to demonstrate (if you assume that the start of the aggression is the first thrown punch rather than the following on car or on foot) that Zimmerman's account is untrue - which comes back to the problems of the self-defence plea structurally...
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:01 AM on July 14, 2013
Regardless, those are still arguments about the progress of the fight rather than its origins. Legally, however, it was pretty much impossible to demonstrate (if you assume that the start of the aggression is the first thrown punch rather than the following on car or on foot) that Zimmerman's account is untrue - which comes back to the problems of the self-defence plea structurally...
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:01 AM on July 14, 2013
I would like to see an infographic of every single person who has ever been found guilty of murder or manslaughter in Florida, and for someone to map out what their trials would have looked like if, instead of claiming that they didn't commit the crime, they simply announced that they had felt threatened and had committed the murder in self-defense. People talk about 'lack of evidence' in this case, but it seems to me that in most criminal trials, common sense is allowed to substitute for direct evidence so often that it becomes invisible, yet if we didn't, the justice system would cease to function.
Imagine a murder trial in which a husband stabs his wife to death in the privacy of their home, no witnesses. If he swore that, moments before, she had tried to throttle him, and he had felt threatened and killed her in self-defense, would we believe him? I would guess not, for the following reasons: she is dead, he clearly killed her, he has an obvious reason to lie about what's happened, and what's more, even if it were some version the truth, surely - common sense suggests - he could have responded to that situation in a way other than stabbing her to death. And yet, fundamentally, we don't know that he is not telling the truth. If what we need is not evidence of the crime itself, but evidence of the accused murderer's mental state and his beliefs about what was happening at the time...the barrier to conviction rises higher and higher until it begins to seem almost unsurmountable.
Every single fight that ends in a death, every single gang altercation - really, every single murder in which no one was present but the murderer and the victim...look at it through the lens of this case and tell me what you see.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Imagine a murder trial in which a husband stabs his wife to death in the privacy of their home, no witnesses. If he swore that, moments before, she had tried to throttle him, and he had felt threatened and killed her in self-defense, would we believe him? I would guess not, for the following reasons: she is dead, he clearly killed her, he has an obvious reason to lie about what's happened, and what's more, even if it were some version the truth, surely - common sense suggests - he could have responded to that situation in a way other than stabbing her to death. And yet, fundamentally, we don't know that he is not telling the truth. If what we need is not evidence of the crime itself, but evidence of the accused murderer's mental state and his beliefs about what was happening at the time...the barrier to conviction rises higher and higher until it begins to seem almost unsurmountable.
Every single fight that ends in a death, every single gang altercation - really, every single murder in which no one was present but the murderer and the victim...look at it through the lens of this case and tell me what you see.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 10:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
1) if Trayvon had been white, would Zimmerman have walked free?
2) if there are riots, how many of the rioters will be shot or imprisoned?
3) are things going to get better, or worse?
posted by windykites at 10:03 AM on July 14, 2013
2) if there are riots, how many of the rioters will be shot or imprisoned?
3) are things going to get better, or worse?
posted by windykites at 10:03 AM on July 14, 2013
Couldn't the prosecution have sought some gross negligence manslaughter or similar charge in this case? Does anyone have insight into why they couldn't or at least didn't?
They did; Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
Can one of our resident lawyers explain how someone gets charged with murder and manslaughter? I mean, it's not like where someone gets charged with using a gun and carrying a gun and killing someone with a gun, where you can kind of separate the actions -- in my untrained mind, murder is killing someone and manslaughter is killing someone, so how do you get to charge someone with both?
posted by Etrigan at 10:03 AM on July 14, 2013
They did; Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
Can one of our resident lawyers explain how someone gets charged with murder and manslaughter? I mean, it's not like where someone gets charged with using a gun and carrying a gun and killing someone with a gun, where you can kind of separate the actions -- in my untrained mind, murder is killing someone and manslaughter is killing someone, so how do you get to charge someone with both?
posted by Etrigan at 10:03 AM on July 14, 2013
And I don't see the so-called "responsible" gun owners here or elsewhere saying "Holy shit, that guy just said a bunch of racist shit."
I'm a responsible gun owner and happy to say that shit is racist, but I'm reluctant to get much further involved in the conversation because when I've spoken up in the past to say that I'm a member of some group routinely vilified on MetaFilter and we don't all say/do whatever thing someone is generalizing that members of said group all say/do, I get accused of a derail and my comments deleted. So I don't know what you expect us to do when that's the typical response?
The truth about gun control and racism is actually the opposite of what most MeFites believe. It's not that racism against blacks prevents gun control laws from being passed, but that racism against blacks was the original motivation for passing gun control laws. The Black Panthers began encouraging black people to exercise their second amendment rights and in response state legislatures and local governments passed the most restrictive gun control laws in the cities with large black populations.
As a non-racist pro-gun-rights person, I would love to see a resurgence of the Black Panther movement. The police are obviously doing a terrible job protecting the rights of black people to live in safe communities.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I'm a responsible gun owner and happy to say that shit is racist, but I'm reluctant to get much further involved in the conversation because when I've spoken up in the past to say that I'm a member of some group routinely vilified on MetaFilter and we don't all say/do whatever thing someone is generalizing that members of said group all say/do, I get accused of a derail and my comments deleted. So I don't know what you expect us to do when that's the typical response?
The truth about gun control and racism is actually the opposite of what most MeFites believe. It's not that racism against blacks prevents gun control laws from being passed, but that racism against blacks was the original motivation for passing gun control laws. The Black Panthers began encouraging black people to exercise their second amendment rights and in response state legislatures and local governments passed the most restrictive gun control laws in the cities with large black populations.
As a non-racist pro-gun-rights person, I would love to see a resurgence of the Black Panther movement. The police are obviously doing a terrible job protecting the rights of black people to live in safe communities.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:05 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I think one of the things we need in our society is a black box program for our phones. Even among the poorer elements of our society smartphones are increasingly common and as time passes will become even more common.
A program that can, with one touch of an icon, be activated to record **and stream to an online archive** audio and video would at least make it easier to sort out things when, as the inevitable result of the law and this court decision, people decide that it's just easier to kill the victim to make it simpler to claim self defense.
At the very least it'll keep creepy vigilante types from getting away with murder as Zimmerman just did.
As for the rest, I don't know. My wife and I are still talking about moving to another country, or at least to a state with stricter gun control and no vigilante enabling laws. Right now we live in Texas, which is about as bad as Florida.
As for black folks arming themselves, that's a terrible idea. If the racist vigilantes of the world are murdering unarmed black folks now, just wait until they piss their pants in fear of armed black folks. Right now it's bad enough, right now thanks to this court case it's basically open season on young black men. But if young black men started arming themselves? The incidents of Zimmerman types murdering them would skyrocket.
I'll end with a statistic: in Florida when the victim of a killing is black there is a 79% chance that the killer will walk free. The odds of walking free if the victim is white are only 59%. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152
posted by sotonohito at 10:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
A program that can, with one touch of an icon, be activated to record **and stream to an online archive** audio and video would at least make it easier to sort out things when, as the inevitable result of the law and this court decision, people decide that it's just easier to kill the victim to make it simpler to claim self defense.
At the very least it'll keep creepy vigilante types from getting away with murder as Zimmerman just did.
As for the rest, I don't know. My wife and I are still talking about moving to another country, or at least to a state with stricter gun control and no vigilante enabling laws. Right now we live in Texas, which is about as bad as Florida.
As for black folks arming themselves, that's a terrible idea. If the racist vigilantes of the world are murdering unarmed black folks now, just wait until they piss their pants in fear of armed black folks. Right now it's bad enough, right now thanks to this court case it's basically open season on young black men. But if young black men started arming themselves? The incidents of Zimmerman types murdering them would skyrocket.
I'll end with a statistic: in Florida when the victim of a killing is black there is a 79% chance that the killer will walk free. The odds of walking free if the victim is white are only 59%. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/race-plays-complex-role-in-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/1233152
posted by sotonohito at 10:06 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
If the jurors didn't believe that Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin intentionally (murder), they could've still believed that he was guilty of killing Martin unintentionally (manslaughter). The instructions gave them the option to choose. For some reason, they chose neither.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by girlmightlive at 10:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Lawyers help me out. It looks to me like what Zimmerman did was aggravated stalking, a felony under Florida law. Why didn't prosecutors charge aggravated stalking and thereby get murder for free as a killing during the commission of a felony?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
The police are obviously doing a terrible job protecting the rights of black people to live in safe communities.
Yeah, I keep thinking that if we had enough cops doing their job, we wouldn't even need guys like Zimmerman and the crazy dude in my mom's old neighborhood who spies on everyone and makes trouble all the time. Then I think about what the real functions of the cops work out to be in US society (protecting property and social order, which last is fundamentally constructed in a racist manner) and I realize that's not going to work well either. This case and all the questions that spiral off it fill me with despair.
posted by immlass at 10:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I keep thinking that if we had enough cops doing their job, we wouldn't even need guys like Zimmerman and the crazy dude in my mom's old neighborhood who spies on everyone and makes trouble all the time. Then I think about what the real functions of the cops work out to be in US society (protecting property and social order, which last is fundamentally constructed in a racist manner) and I realize that's not going to work well either. This case and all the questions that spiral off it fill me with despair.
posted by immlass at 10:10 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Can one of our resident lawyers explain how someone gets charged with murder and manslaughter? I mean, it's not like where someone gets charged with using a gun and carrying a gun and killing someone with a gun, where you can kind of separate the actions -- in my untrained mind, murder is killing someone and manslaughter is killing someone, so how do you get to charge someone with both?
IANAL, but manslaughter in this case would presumably be a lesser included offense, - so, you could not convict of both murder and manslaughter, but you could acquit of murder and convict of manslaughter.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:11 AM on July 14, 2013
IANAL, but manslaughter in this case would presumably be a lesser included offense, - so, you could not convict of both murder and manslaughter, but you could acquit of murder and convict of manslaughter.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:11 AM on July 14, 2013
"Random question - why are the genders of the jury members so prominent in the news reports? What is the relevance?"
Trial lawyers are like hockey and baseball players in their superstitious beliefs about what makes them win (smelly socks, holey shoes, certain jurors). I was a research assistant for a major jury researcher, and there's actually hardly any evidence (and most of that evidence is questionable) that the makeup of a jury makes much difference -- 12 highly-educated professionals, 12 elderly retirees, 12 broke high-school educated folks, 12 white guys, 12 black guys, 12 men, 12 women, any combination of these people, virtually always come to the same conclusions. Most jurors try very hard to follow the instructions and carefully consider the evidence they're given. (They're not told, "Look at this case and decide who's in the wrong"; they get instructions more like "This crime has three elements. First, malice aforethought, which means X, Y, and Z. Considering this evidence, did X, Y, and Z all occur? If they all did, then you have malice aforethought. Second, blah blah blah. ... If you find all of these elements, you must find the defendant guilty. If any of these elements is missing, you must find him not guilty.") As long as you remove people who don't believe in crimes at all, who refuse to abide by instructions, who are virulent racists (etc.), who personally know the parties or attorneys or witnesses, and who have had that specific crime committed against them, it doesn't seem to matter very much whom you seat on the jury.
However, trial lawyers and jury consultants are all profoundly convinced it makes a difference and they all have these secret, unsupported ideas about what differences it makes. So news commentators who talk to trial lawyers and jury consultants hear a lot from those people about what difference the make-up of the jury makes, because most trial lawyers think it DOES make a difference, for superstitious, unsupported reasons. Probably in this case, the prosecution thought women would be more upset by an innocent teenager being killed, and the defense thought women would be more frightened of a threatening teenager wandering the neighborhood -- both superstitions can't be true at once. Research suggests there's nothing to that at all (but that it also doesn't matter that it's all women). Anyway, the jury's a really important cog in the trial machine but there's not much you can say about a jury because their identities are protected and the media can't talk to them during the trial, so the media typically ends up parroting random trial lawyers' superstitions about jury selection.
It's passably interesting that it was an all-woman jury, in the same sort of way it's passably interesting that you flipped a coin six times and they all came up heads, so a news guy saying, "The jury, which consists of six women, will deliberate ..." is no big deal, it's just a humanizing detail of passing interest when you can't say much about the jury. The FIXATION on the fact that it's six women, though, comes from the superstitions of trial lawyers about jury selection.
Jury selection seems to matter a little bit in large white-collar crime and tort cases, of the sorts the banks have been committing. The highly-technical, convoluted nature of the offenses can make it difficult for a jury. There's been some talk of specialist judges and juries for those sorts of trials; specialist courts have been tried in the US and other parts of the world for things like patents, medical malpractice, employment, etc. They seem to work reasonably well.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Trial lawyers are like hockey and baseball players in their superstitious beliefs about what makes them win (smelly socks, holey shoes, certain jurors). I was a research assistant for a major jury researcher, and there's actually hardly any evidence (and most of that evidence is questionable) that the makeup of a jury makes much difference -- 12 highly-educated professionals, 12 elderly retirees, 12 broke high-school educated folks, 12 white guys, 12 black guys, 12 men, 12 women, any combination of these people, virtually always come to the same conclusions. Most jurors try very hard to follow the instructions and carefully consider the evidence they're given. (They're not told, "Look at this case and decide who's in the wrong"; they get instructions more like "This crime has three elements. First, malice aforethought, which means X, Y, and Z. Considering this evidence, did X, Y, and Z all occur? If they all did, then you have malice aforethought. Second, blah blah blah. ... If you find all of these elements, you must find the defendant guilty. If any of these elements is missing, you must find him not guilty.") As long as you remove people who don't believe in crimes at all, who refuse to abide by instructions, who are virulent racists (etc.), who personally know the parties or attorneys or witnesses, and who have had that specific crime committed against them, it doesn't seem to matter very much whom you seat on the jury.
However, trial lawyers and jury consultants are all profoundly convinced it makes a difference and they all have these secret, unsupported ideas about what differences it makes. So news commentators who talk to trial lawyers and jury consultants hear a lot from those people about what difference the make-up of the jury makes, because most trial lawyers think it DOES make a difference, for superstitious, unsupported reasons. Probably in this case, the prosecution thought women would be more upset by an innocent teenager being killed, and the defense thought women would be more frightened of a threatening teenager wandering the neighborhood -- both superstitions can't be true at once. Research suggests there's nothing to that at all (but that it also doesn't matter that it's all women). Anyway, the jury's a really important cog in the trial machine but there's not much you can say about a jury because their identities are protected and the media can't talk to them during the trial, so the media typically ends up parroting random trial lawyers' superstitions about jury selection.
It's passably interesting that it was an all-woman jury, in the same sort of way it's passably interesting that you flipped a coin six times and they all came up heads, so a news guy saying, "The jury, which consists of six women, will deliberate ..." is no big deal, it's just a humanizing detail of passing interest when you can't say much about the jury. The FIXATION on the fact that it's six women, though, comes from the superstitions of trial lawyers about jury selection.
Jury selection seems to matter a little bit in large white-collar crime and tort cases, of the sorts the banks have been committing. The highly-technical, convoluted nature of the offenses can make it difficult for a jury. There's been some talk of specialist judges and juries for those sorts of trials; specialist courts have been tried in the US and other parts of the world for things like patents, medical malpractice, employment, etc. They seem to work reasonably well.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:12 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Is there anywhere we can watch a taping/replay of the trial?
posted by Autumn at 10:13 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Autumn at 10:13 AM on July 14, 2013
Let's forget about laws for a second. If we were tasked with creating a new, fair legal system, how many years should Zimmerman get?
posted by rainy at 10:15 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by rainy at 10:15 AM on July 14, 2013
Is there anywhere we can watch a taping/replay of the trial?
There is a whole bunch of it at this Youtube Channel
posted by lampshade at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
There is a whole bunch of it at this Youtube Channel
posted by lampshade at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As I recall, the only evidence at trial on the issue of how the physical confrontation initiated (which of course was mostly George Zimmerman's own previous statements, but the only evidence nonetheless) was that after some verbal exchange Trayvon Martin sucker-punched George Zimmerman in the nose, took him down to the ground, and was beating him in the "ground and pound position" for 45 seconds which included hitting George Zimmerman's head on concrete. This version was the only one for which there was evidence after the prosecution's best efforts.
posted by cheburashka at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cheburashka at 10:18 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
RTFT, dude.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Except there were also accounts from witnesses at the time that Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe enough to support the idea he had been that badly beaten. This case seriously makes me feel nervous about living in Florida and I'm white. Red necks used to routinely chase and attack me and other punk/skater kids in high school. Now I'm realizing there's nothing legally to protect anyone in those kinds of situations in Florida. I already knew the courts in Florida suck, but now I really don't see how people can feel secure from harrassment and any of the various forms of cultural bigotry in the state. I'm going to be travelling through the area tomorrow. It's a horrible place full of mcmansions and nouveau riche twits. Ugh.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 10:30 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Seriously, guys, all the stuff with the evidence and reasonable doubt and provocation was gone over in minute detail last thread. You can read it if you want! We made all of these points (on both sides) a lot.
posted by Justinian at 10:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:35 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Let's forget about laws for a second. If we were tasked with creating a new, fair legal system, how many years should Zimmerman get?
posted by rainy at 10:15 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
If we were tasked with creating a new, fair legal system, I would hope it would focus on preventing situations like this in the first place-- that young black men wouldn't be demonized, that they wouldn't be scared to call 911, that no one could carry a gun to murder a child unthinkingly.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by rainy at 10:15 AM on July 14 [+] [!]
If we were tasked with creating a new, fair legal system, I would hope it would focus on preventing situations like this in the first place-- that young black men wouldn't be demonized, that they wouldn't be scared to call 911, that no one could carry a gun to murder a child unthinkingly.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
As I recall, there was opinion testimony from medical expert (and non-expert) witnesses that George Zimmerman did not have serious resultant injuries. You can have your head hit on concrete and not have serious resultant injuries, but I would say that having your head hit on concrete is being "badly beaten."
"Seriously, guys, all the stuff with the evidence and reasonable doubt and provocation was gone over in minute detail last thread. You can read it if you want! We made all of these points (on both sides) a lot."
Yet in this thread there is repeated and much-endorsed speculation, and indeed factual assertions that are simply false even on the prosecution's version of the events.
posted by cheburashka at 10:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Seriously, guys, all the stuff with the evidence and reasonable doubt and provocation was gone over in minute detail last thread. You can read it if you want! We made all of these points (on both sides) a lot."
Yet in this thread there is repeated and much-endorsed speculation, and indeed factual assertions that are simply false even on the prosecution's version of the events.
posted by cheburashka at 10:38 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"...that young black men wouldn't be demonized..."
Both Zimmerman and Martin are victims of hegemonic, white supremacy. That poor kid's last moments on this earth must have been horrific. And Zimmerman? His family says he's been depressed ever since he killed the kid. Not hard to believe. If anything, that guy should be on suicide watch.
posted by artof.mulata at 10:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Both Zimmerman and Martin are victims of hegemonic, white supremacy. That poor kid's last moments on this earth must have been horrific. And Zimmerman? His family says he's been depressed ever since he killed the kid. Not hard to believe. If anything, that guy should be on suicide watch.
posted by artof.mulata at 10:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
They did; Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter as well.
Yeah, but that was an eleventh-hour lesser charge that was still subject to Stand Your Ground (ie, it was a question of whether the shooting was justifiable during the fight itself).
As mentioned above, I'm interested to see why something like aggravated stalking or harassment wouldn't apply here. Fear that it would render all neighborhood watch programs illegal, maybe?
posted by graphnerd at 10:43 AM on July 14, 2013
Yeah, but that was an eleventh-hour lesser charge that was still subject to Stand Your Ground (ie, it was a question of whether the shooting was justifiable during the fight itself).
As mentioned above, I'm interested to see why something like aggravated stalking or harassment wouldn't apply here. Fear that it would render all neighborhood watch programs illegal, maybe?
posted by graphnerd at 10:43 AM on July 14, 2013
I would have a lot more sympathy for Zimmerman if he had apologized, admitted he should not have shot Martin, and negotiated a plea to manslaughter. Since he has never even come close to apologizing or admitting he did anything wrong, or even said that he feels bad about what he did, since he in fact has said that he would do everything the same way again, I really don't give a fuck if he's depressed, scared, sad, or anything else.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 10:45 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted; metacommentary about MetaFilter does not go here, it goes in MetaTalk or the contact form. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:46 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:46 AM on July 14, 2013
I don't know--would 20 years be considered a fair sentence for a woman firing a gun in the air to scare away her abusive husband as he breaks the restraining order against him in this hypothetical perfect system? If so, then I guess life sounds about right.
The overarching, fundamental point of our system is supposed to be delivering justice. The system is failing us in countless ways on that count. The focus on process is just a distraction from that fact.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:46 AM on July 14, 2013
The overarching, fundamental point of our system is supposed to be delivering justice. The system is failing us in countless ways on that count. The focus on process is just a distraction from that fact.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:46 AM on July 14, 2013
Congressman Steve King Blames Obama For Zimmerman Having To Stand Trial For Killing Trayvon Martin
Karl Rove: Obama 'Ripped Us Apart' by Sympathizing With Trayvon's Parents
posted by homunculus at 10:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Karl Rove: Obama 'Ripped Us Apart' by Sympathizing With Trayvon's Parents
posted by homunculus at 10:47 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Rick Perry Reacts To Zimmerman Verdict: ‘I Think Our Justice System Is Color Blind’
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Others point out that this verdict depended on the unique nature of the law in Florida.
Huh? As far as I know, Zimmerman would have been (appropriately) acquitted under the self-defense law of any state. I don't see anything in that article to the contrary. The case wasn't about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
Without testimony? In Florida, the fact that it wasn't self-defense must be proved by the state.
Insane.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Huh? As far as I know, Zimmerman would have been (appropriately) acquitted under the self-defense law of any state. I don't see anything in that article to the contrary. The case wasn't about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
Without testimony? In Florida, the fact that it wasn't self-defense must be proved by the state.
Insane.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
hydropsyche, pretty sure Zimmerman had been heavily coached not to apologize. That would have jeopardized his case...
posted by artof.mulata at 10:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by artof.mulata at 10:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Karl Rove: Obama 'Ripped Us Apart' by Sympathizing With Trayvon's Parents
so, how many times is this obama guy going to be allowed to rip us apart like that? - and how many pieces are we in now?
since when have we been together, anyway?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
so, how many times is this obama guy going to be allowed to rip us apart like that? - and how many pieces are we in now?
since when have we been together, anyway?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am a white mother with a young, black son. Living in Chicago. Others look at him when he is with me, his openness, his gentleness, his charm, his humor is all evident. And someday he will be 17, not 4. What will they see then?
I'm not ignorant of what other friends have had to endure...the intense lectures from their parents when they were younger about "how to act around police" to avoid getting hurt or profiled, what to wear so as to avoid suspicion/look less "threatening"/etc. And it makes my stomach turn. That someday I will have to be having these same conversations with my bright, beautiful, amazing boy...reveal to him that the world that I walk in, where I don't have to think twice about many things, is not a world that he can also enjoy. That there will be a day when someone might cross the street in the evening to avoid him, might get up and change their seat on a bus to distance themselves from him, might stalk him unbidden across a neighborhood with a gun tucked under their shirt. Just like all of the mothers before me in America, with those same fears.
Trayvon Martin stood his ground with a bag of Skittles, not George Zimmerman with his 9mm. The technicalities of the Florida case, the prosecutors' poor choices, don't negate the very real problem that we have here in this country including the persistent denial of many who say that they are not racist but deny that this case was ever about race.
posted by jeanmari at 10:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [48 favorites]
I'm not ignorant of what other friends have had to endure...the intense lectures from their parents when they were younger about "how to act around police" to avoid getting hurt or profiled, what to wear so as to avoid suspicion/look less "threatening"/etc. And it makes my stomach turn. That someday I will have to be having these same conversations with my bright, beautiful, amazing boy...reveal to him that the world that I walk in, where I don't have to think twice about many things, is not a world that he can also enjoy. That there will be a day when someone might cross the street in the evening to avoid him, might get up and change their seat on a bus to distance themselves from him, might stalk him unbidden across a neighborhood with a gun tucked under their shirt. Just like all of the mothers before me in America, with those same fears.
Trayvon Martin stood his ground with a bag of Skittles, not George Zimmerman with his 9mm. The technicalities of the Florida case, the prosecutors' poor choices, don't negate the very real problem that we have here in this country including the persistent denial of many who say that they are not racist but deny that this case was ever about race.
posted by jeanmari at 10:52 AM on July 14, 2013 [48 favorites]
hydropsyche, pretty sure Zimmerman had been heavily coached not to apologize. That would have jeopardized his case...
Yes. And so I don't have to feel bad if he's depressed. If he wants to not be depressed, if he wants to not be scared, if he wants to ever feel better again, he should hold his own press conference without his fucking lawyers and apologize to the victim's parents. He should state unequivocally that he made many mistakes that night, that if he could do it over then he never would have gotten out of his car, and that he and he alone is to blame for Martin's death.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Yes. And so I don't have to feel bad if he's depressed. If he wants to not be depressed, if he wants to not be scared, if he wants to ever feel better again, he should hold his own press conference without his fucking lawyers and apologize to the victim's parents. He should state unequivocally that he made many mistakes that night, that if he could do it over then he never would have gotten out of his car, and that he and he alone is to blame for Martin's death.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
but I would say that having your head hit on concrete is being "badly beaten."
Doesn't really matter if the injuries weren't even remotely life threatening. You think Zimmerman's life was evidently at greater risk than the dead 17 year old? By your reasoning, doesn't Martin's being dead provide sufficient grounds to believe he had reason to believe his life was in danger and he was the one acting in self-defense?
Systems that don't deliver the kinds of outcomes they're intended to produce (in this case, just ones) are broken. You can't just hand wave it away saying the system works as designed whether it's a justice system or a computer system.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Doesn't really matter if the injuries weren't even remotely life threatening. You think Zimmerman's life was evidently at greater risk than the dead 17 year old? By your reasoning, doesn't Martin's being dead provide sufficient grounds to believe he had reason to believe his life was in danger and he was the one acting in self-defense?
Systems that don't deliver the kinds of outcomes they're intended to produce (in this case, just ones) are broken. You can't just hand wave it away saying the system works as designed whether it's a justice system or a computer system.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Bug status: closed - operating as intended
... makes me sick.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
... makes me sick.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:57 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I don't think I've ever been literally horrified by a jury's decision before. I can't believe this.
It reminds me of when I found out that OJ was, er, innocent.
posted by anothermug at 11:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
It reminds me of when I found out that OJ was, er, innocent.
posted by anothermug at 11:00 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution." -- CNN: What About Martin's Right To "Stand His Ground"
posted by bibliowench at 11:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution." -- CNN: What About Martin's Right To "Stand His Ground"
posted by bibliowench at 11:02 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
I see this as yet another reminder of the complete insanity of a country which protects the right of its citizens to routinely carry firearms around residential neighbourhoods. I'd wager that Zimmerman's decision to confront Martin stemmed just as much from a sense of invulnerability because he was "packing heat" as it did from racial profiling.
posted by modernnomad at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by modernnomad at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I want to hear what Rick Perry thinks about this about as much as I want to hear what serial killers think about various body disposal methods, homonculus.
They are certain to have decided opinions on the matter, but no one needs to hear about it, especially in light of the evil, wicked things they've done to their fellow humans.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
They are certain to have decided opinions on the matter, but no one needs to hear about it, especially in light of the evil, wicked things they've done to their fellow humans.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Gotta admit, I am pretty disappointed in some of the sensationalist and racially charged language used in this thread. I am realizing more and more that trials like this point to there being more racial and political problems still existing in the USA than I, a white male, realize, but sometimes.... I think we fan more of this into existence than we really might need to.
posted by Jacen at 11:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 11:07 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"And so I don't have to feel bad if he's depressed."
Part of me wishes Zimmerman'd gone down in flames, too. Another part looks at him and sees a poor schmuck who's been fed shitty hero narratives and grew up believing them and wanting to embody them. And look where it get's us.
Black boys grow up hearing that we're dangerous and it makes you want to act out dangerous. I've seen this so many times and lived it myself. Lots of black guys can tell you the same thing. I can't help thinking that crappy quality of life environments, horrible, racist scorn poured on you from many disparate sources, and a desire to lash out at your attackers and tormentors, even if only symbolically/metaphorically, cause a lot of black crime. We aren't inherently 'criminal'; we are cast as such.
And the Zimmerman's come from a similar cloth. The white guy is the hero saving the day from the hordes of whatever isn't the white guy. Kids believe this shit and grow up to be adults that live it. When you can't tell reality from fantasy you end up with crap laws, unsympathetic citizens (because they can't escape mythologizing the other people around them).
That's why I feel bad for both of them. White supremacy kills everybody, not just non-white people.
posted by artof.mulata at 11:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
Part of me wishes Zimmerman'd gone down in flames, too. Another part looks at him and sees a poor schmuck who's been fed shitty hero narratives and grew up believing them and wanting to embody them. And look where it get's us.
Black boys grow up hearing that we're dangerous and it makes you want to act out dangerous. I've seen this so many times and lived it myself. Lots of black guys can tell you the same thing. I can't help thinking that crappy quality of life environments, horrible, racist scorn poured on you from many disparate sources, and a desire to lash out at your attackers and tormentors, even if only symbolically/metaphorically, cause a lot of black crime. We aren't inherently 'criminal'; we are cast as such.
And the Zimmerman's come from a similar cloth. The white guy is the hero saving the day from the hordes of whatever isn't the white guy. Kids believe this shit and grow up to be adults that live it. When you can't tell reality from fantasy you end up with crap laws, unsympathetic citizens (because they can't escape mythologizing the other people around them).
That's why I feel bad for both of them. White supremacy kills everybody, not just non-white people.
posted by artof.mulata at 11:08 AM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
Gotta admit, I am pretty disappointed in some of the sensationalist and racially charged language used in this thread. I am realizing more and more that trials like this point to there being more racial and political problems still existing in the USA than I, a white male, realize, but sometimes.... I think we fan more of this into existence than we really might need to.
Man, you are so right. The way people are behaving, you'd think someone had been killed or something.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [39 favorites]
Man, you are so right. The way people are behaving, you'd think someone had been killed or something.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:09 AM on July 14, 2013 [39 favorites]
Mod note: Reminder, metacommentary about how MetaFilter handles a topic does not go here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:11 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:11 AM on July 14, 2013
I just feel bad for the family who lost their son to a senseless act of violence and had to live through months of the national media dragging their dead child's reputation through the dirt just to protect some overzealous, paranoid piece of crap with a gun. Whether this was the law being pedantically applied or not, it's a shameful, disgusting and cruel outcome and process.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:14 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
A lot of people are in despair over it. Your coming in here with a rape analogy and making statements that don't really seem to be rooted in reality (like the above comment) are really insensitive. Do you see that, at all?
A lot of people are coming in and sharing their emotions and their fears. And to many people, their words seem insensitive.
When I see people taking about "gun nuts" it seems insensitive to mefites who own guns, by implying that they are crazy.When they talk about "crazy paranoid (ex) military types", they are insensitive to veterans. A lot of the discussion about race seems to leave out the status of Hispanics/Latinos in America today, which also seems insensitive. I think that it is hard for a lot of us whose emotions are raging to keep themselves from offending anyon - because everyone's nerves are raw, and we are bumping up against each other.
My intention is not to be insensitive to those who are in despair. But I've been in despair for months over this trial, over the potential rolling back of laws I thought would protect me. And so the verdict is no less an emotional thing for me. For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe. A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
posted by corb at 11:15 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
A lot of people are coming in and sharing their emotions and their fears. And to many people, their words seem insensitive.
When I see people taking about "gun nuts" it seems insensitive to mefites who own guns, by implying that they are crazy.When they talk about "crazy paranoid (ex) military types", they are insensitive to veterans. A lot of the discussion about race seems to leave out the status of Hispanics/Latinos in America today, which also seems insensitive. I think that it is hard for a lot of us whose emotions are raging to keep themselves from offending anyon - because everyone's nerves are raw, and we are bumping up against each other.
My intention is not to be insensitive to those who are in despair. But I've been in despair for months over this trial, over the potential rolling back of laws I thought would protect me. And so the verdict is no less an emotional thing for me. For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe. A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
posted by corb at 11:15 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
It is peculiar to me that you can only seem to put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes, and not Martin's.
posted by rtha at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [69 favorites]
posted by rtha at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [69 favorites]
let's not forget the gross insensitivity a lot of us have towards those who kill their fellow human beings unnecessarily - and the bottom line of everything that happened is that one person, george zimmerman, could have backed off at any time up until the final minute of that confrontation
morally, he was wrong - and morally, the system we have is wrong for allowing him to get away with it
as far as due process of law is concerned, at one time it was due process of law to force people to return runaway slaves and to allow them to be beaten to death by their masters
which, i fear, is a lot more relevant than it should be
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
morally, he was wrong - and morally, the system we have is wrong for allowing him to get away with it
as far as due process of law is concerned, at one time it was due process of law to force people to return runaway slaves and to allow them to be beaten to death by their masters
which, i fear, is a lot more relevant than it should be
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe.
Beautifully said.
This is larger than just a single case. People always tend to look at the outcome of one case and then wanting to change the laws so that this one case gets a "better" ending. Without looking at the greater picture.
posted by 2uo at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Beautifully said.
This is larger than just a single case. People always tend to look at the outcome of one case and then wanting to change the laws so that this one case gets a "better" ending. Without looking at the greater picture.
posted by 2uo at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe.
Trayvon Martin is the one who was attacked and allegedly fought back. He didn't go to jail for it because he is dead.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [65 favorites]
Trayvon Martin is the one who was attacked and allegedly fought back. He didn't go to jail for it because he is dead.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [65 favorites]
For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back.
Against a black guy walking down the street?
posted by thelonius at 11:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Against a black guy walking down the street?
posted by thelonius at 11:25 AM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
People always tend to look at the outcome of one case and then wanting to change the laws so that this one case gets a "better" ending. Without looking at the greater picture.
there are states, including mine, where one has a duty under the law to do everything one can do to step away from a confrontation in a public space
and THAT is what the law should be
posted by pyramid termite at 11:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
there are states, including mine, where one has a duty under the law to do everything one can do to step away from a confrontation in a public space
and THAT is what the law should be
posted by pyramid termite at 11:26 AM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
When I see people taking about "gun nuts" it seems insensitive to mefites who own guns, by implying that they are crazy.When they talk about "crazy paranoid (ex) military types", they are insensitive to veterans.
"Gun nuts" is meant to be pejorative towards those who are, in fact, nutty about guns, not those who see that the right to bear arms is neither unlimited nor a universal good. "Crazy paranoid (ex) military types" is meant to pejorative to those who have decided to see the world as a war zone that requires them to prepare for battle, not veterans who, as a whole, do not see the world this way. Both can be applied to many in power, both on the moneyed side and on the elected side.
My intention is not to be insensitive to those who are in despair. But I've been in despair for months over this trial, over the potential rolling back of laws I thought would protect me.
Are they protecting everybody? An answer in the positive has yet to be provided.
And so the verdict is no less an emotional thing for me. For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe.
Too bad that reassurance comes at a cost to everybody else.
A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
Oh, FFS, this overwrought purple prose is just flat-out ridiculous.
This is larger than just a single case. People always tend to look at the outcome of one case and then wanting to change the laws so that this one case gets a "better" ending. Without looking at the greater picture.
Over the course of several threads plenty of evidence has been provided as to why the laws around this case and others provide as many worse endings than better ones, and in all likelihood provide more. Maybe you haven't been looking at the greater picture, but a lot of as have, and the picture looks very, very bad, especially if you're not white.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
"Gun nuts" is meant to be pejorative towards those who are, in fact, nutty about guns, not those who see that the right to bear arms is neither unlimited nor a universal good. "Crazy paranoid (ex) military types" is meant to pejorative to those who have decided to see the world as a war zone that requires them to prepare for battle, not veterans who, as a whole, do not see the world this way. Both can be applied to many in power, both on the moneyed side and on the elected side.
My intention is not to be insensitive to those who are in despair. But I've been in despair for months over this trial, over the potential rolling back of laws I thought would protect me.
Are they protecting everybody? An answer in the positive has yet to be provided.
And so the verdict is no less an emotional thing for me. For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back. A reassurance that maybe sometimes it is okay to keep yourself safe.
Too bad that reassurance comes at a cost to everybody else.
A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
Oh, FFS, this overwrought purple prose is just flat-out ridiculous.
This is larger than just a single case. People always tend to look at the outcome of one case and then wanting to change the laws so that this one case gets a "better" ending. Without looking at the greater picture.
Over the course of several threads plenty of evidence has been provided as to why the laws around this case and others provide as many worse endings than better ones, and in all likelihood provide more. Maybe you haven't been looking at the greater picture, but a lot of as have, and the picture looks very, very bad, especially if you're not white.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
Corb, you say that your greatest concern is the rolling back of the stand your ground/ self-defence law, but I genuinely cannot understand why you see George Zimmerman and not Trayvon Martin as the one who would legitimately feel threatened and have the right to self-defense. Zimmerman had no need to follow this boy. They didn't bump into each other. Trayvon wasn't following him. Zimmerman set this chain of events in motion. The real analogy would be if you were followed at night (you assume by a creepy potential rapist), you confront the stalker, he kills you and gets off on self-defence. How is this law protecting you?
posted by genuinely curious at 11:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [72 favorites]
posted by genuinely curious at 11:28 AM on July 14, 2013 [72 favorites]
there are states, including mine, where one has a duty under the law to do everything one can do to step away from a confrontation in a public space
and THAT is what the law should be
I can see where you're coming from (life is sacred, better lose a little than the other guy loses everything) and I can respect that, but I just disagree.
It leads to unhealthy incentives. Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
posted by 2uo at 11:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
and THAT is what the law should be
I can see where you're coming from (life is sacred, better lose a little than the other guy loses everything) and I can respect that, but I just disagree.
It leads to unhealthy incentives. Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
posted by 2uo at 11:29 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
For me, it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back.
if you believe that your society is such that you have to be armed to survive in it, you're already in jail for life
posted by pyramid termite at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
if you believe that your society is such that you have to be armed to survive in it, you're already in jail for life
posted by pyramid termite at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Against a black guy walking down the street?
The law is race agnostic. It doesn't even know about any single case. It's a broad set of rules, applicable to everyone.
If the practical implementation in the US is racist (I don't know about that), then that's the problem, not self-defense.
posted by 2uo at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The law is race agnostic. It doesn't even know about any single case. It's a broad set of rules, applicable to everyone.
If the practical implementation in the US is racist (I don't know about that), then that's the problem, not self-defense.
posted by 2uo at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
''Attackers can now create situations where they are guaranteed to "win"''. Yes, like George Zimmerman did.
posted by genuinely curious at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by genuinely curious at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
" Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to 'win'."
We can't have them winning. It's better to kill them.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
We can't have them winning. It's better to kill them.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:31 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whites and African-Americans in America by the numbers
posted by adamvasco at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by adamvasco at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
The unspoken consideration, I think, for many racists looking at this situation is something like "at some point in the future, I or somebody I care about might find it necessary to kill a young black man - since my steady diet of Fox News has taught me that young black men are a menace to my property and my womenfolk, and only I and my guns can protect these things. I am concerned that this might cause problems in the longer term". If that is where your head at, it will be absolutely a relief to know that, at the very least, the justice system of the State of Florida has your back.
Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was a minor. He had no record of violent crime. He posed no threat to George Zimmerman originally, and would have continued never to pose a threat to George Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not engineered a confrontation.
Now, it's very unlikely that those circumstances are going to recur in the paranoid imaginings of racists - the young African-American men in those fantasies will be more violent, more aggressive, actually intent on home invasion. But even with all of those elements, you can still kill a young black man without going to jail.
This is naturally going to be a source of relief for a lot of people - that the principles of justice that protected Bernhard Goetz are still present in the US legal system.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was a minor. He had no record of violent crime. He posed no threat to George Zimmerman originally, and would have continued never to pose a threat to George Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not engineered a confrontation.
Now, it's very unlikely that those circumstances are going to recur in the paranoid imaginings of racists - the young African-American men in those fantasies will be more violent, more aggressive, actually intent on home invasion. But even with all of those elements, you can still kill a young black man without going to jail.
This is naturally going to be a source of relief for a lot of people - that the principles of justice that protected Bernhard Goetz are still present in the US legal system.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
It leads to unhealthy incentives. Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
Yes, this is exactly what happened in this case, isn't it? Zimmerman attacked Martin and created a situation where he was guaranteed to "win". And yesterday he won.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yes, this is exactly what happened in this case, isn't it? Zimmerman attacked Martin and created a situation where he was guaranteed to "win". And yesterday he won.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Trayvon Martin is the one who was attacked and allegedly fought back.
That may very well be the case, but it's equally possible that he was the attacker and Zimmerman was the victim. We'll never know. Courts don't establish "truth". They try to approximate it.
Have you heard about in dubio pro reo?
posted by 2uo at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
That may very well be the case, but it's equally possible that he was the attacker and Zimmerman was the victim. We'll never know. Courts don't establish "truth". They try to approximate it.
Have you heard about in dubio pro reo?
posted by 2uo at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It leads to unhealthy incentives. Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
The "stand your ground" law provides an incentive for homicide. If you don't have a witness to the contrary, you can always get off on self defense. I'm writing to my state lawmakers today to ask that stand your ground be repealed here in Texas. It may be a hopeless effort, but it's a small thing I can do, and if enough of us do it, in time those laws may be repealed.
posted by immlass at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
The "stand your ground" law provides an incentive for homicide. If you don't have a witness to the contrary, you can always get off on self defense. I'm writing to my state lawmakers today to ask that stand your ground be repealed here in Texas. It may be a hopeless effort, but it's a small thing I can do, and if enough of us do it, in time those laws may be repealed.
posted by immlass at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
no they can't - if they make it impossible for you to get away from them, you still are able to plead self-defense
posted by pyramid termite at 11:34 AM on July 14, 2013
no they can't - if they make it impossible for you to get away from them, you still are able to plead self-defense
posted by pyramid termite at 11:34 AM on July 14, 2013
Have you heard of in dubio pro reo?
I would love it if you gave Trayvon Martin a tiny fraction of the benefit of the doubt that you are so willing to give Zimmerman. Especially since Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
I would love it if you gave Trayvon Martin a tiny fraction of the benefit of the doubt that you are so willing to give Zimmerman. Especially since Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:36 AM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
The law is race agnostic. It doesn't even know about any single case. It's a broad set of rules, applicable to everyone.
If the practical implementation in the US is racist (I don't know about that), then that's the problem, not self-defense.
It wouldn't even matter if it was race-agnostic or not. The problem is that it allows for the killer to decide the terms of crime, not the killed. And as of now, it has not proven to fulfill its duty to reduce crime, but is causing the deaths of innocent people. The fact that implementation does seem to be racist--never mind that people working for the groups that write the laws like the NRA certainly seem to have a racist bent--makes it even worse. To remove it from the context of race relations in this country just to try and prove a point is ridiculously naive and offensive.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
If the practical implementation in the US is racist (I don't know about that), then that's the problem, not self-defense.
It wouldn't even matter if it was race-agnostic or not. The problem is that it allows for the killer to decide the terms of crime, not the killed. And as of now, it has not proven to fulfill its duty to reduce crime, but is causing the deaths of innocent people. The fact that implementation does seem to be racist--never mind that people working for the groups that write the laws like the NRA certainly seem to have a racist bent--makes it even worse. To remove it from the context of race relations in this country just to try and prove a point is ridiculously naive and offensive.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
He had no record of violent crime.
Please tell, how could Zimmerman find out about his record on the spot?
He posed no threat to George Zimmerman originally
Very true.
and would have continued never to pose a threat to George Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not engineered a confrontation.
And that part was not proven. Look, I think it's safe to say that Zimmerman acted like an bigotted idiot, made some really poor choices and was probably motivated by some less-than-noble motives.
In the end all this buildup doesn't matter, unless he actually preplanned everything to lead to Martin's death. Possible. But not proven. And, in my opinion, unlikely.
I guess that up to the confrontation it was all Zimmerman being an asshole. What happened starting from the confrontation, who knows? The story, that Martin at some point caused was about about to cause severe risk of life to Zimmerman, has not been disproven.
But even if Zimmerman has stalked him, why did he pummel Zimmerman (if he did -- but that's what we have here, for the purposes of the trial)? Couldn't he have walked away?
posted by 2uo at 11:38 AM on July 14, 2013
Please tell, how could Zimmerman find out about his record on the spot?
He posed no threat to George Zimmerman originally
Very true.
and would have continued never to pose a threat to George Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not engineered a confrontation.
And that part was not proven. Look, I think it's safe to say that Zimmerman acted like an bigotted idiot, made some really poor choices and was probably motivated by some less-than-noble motives.
In the end all this buildup doesn't matter, unless he actually preplanned everything to lead to Martin's death. Possible. But not proven. And, in my opinion, unlikely.
I guess that up to the confrontation it was all Zimmerman being an asshole. What happened starting from the confrontation, who knows? The story, that Martin at some point caused was about about to cause severe risk of life to Zimmerman, has not been disproven.
But even if Zimmerman has stalked him, why did he pummel Zimmerman (if he did -- but that's what we have here, for the purposes of the trial)? Couldn't he have walked away?
posted by 2uo at 11:38 AM on July 14, 2013
"Doesn't really matter if they weren't even remotely life threatening."
If you feel that having your head bashed against concrete is not life-threatening or sufficient justification to respond with deadly force, you're entitled to your opinion and to advocate that the law be changed to reflect this.
"You think Zimmerman's life was evidently at greater risk than the dead 17 year old? By your reasoning, doesn't Martin's being dead provide sufficient grounds to believe he had reason to believe his life was in danger and he was the one acting in self-defense?"
Much implicit speculation here. Even after the defense was not allowed to present evidence indicating that Trayvon Martin did street fighting as a hobby, the version of the events for which there was the most evidence was that Trayon Martin initiated the physical attack and that George Zimmerman was being beaten and screaming for help for almost a minute before the shot.
posted by cheburashka at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you feel that having your head bashed against concrete is not life-threatening or sufficient justification to respond with deadly force, you're entitled to your opinion and to advocate that the law be changed to reflect this.
"You think Zimmerman's life was evidently at greater risk than the dead 17 year old? By your reasoning, doesn't Martin's being dead provide sufficient grounds to believe he had reason to believe his life was in danger and he was the one acting in self-defense?"
Much implicit speculation here. Even after the defense was not allowed to present evidence indicating that Trayvon Martin did street fighting as a hobby, the version of the events for which there was the most evidence was that Trayon Martin initiated the physical attack and that George Zimmerman was being beaten and screaming for help for almost a minute before the shot.
posted by cheburashka at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
How much more evidence do you need than Zimmerman by his own admission pursuing Martin even after police advised him not to? Idiotic.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:40 AM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
I would love it if you gave Trayvon Martin a tiny fraction of the benefit of the doubt that you are so willing to give Zimmerman. Especially since Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive.
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Zimmerman stands trial. "reus" is "defendant", not "dead man".
If Martin had overcome and killed Zimmerman I would be arguing in dubio pro reo for him.
posted by 2uo at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Zimmerman stands trial. "reus" is "defendant", not "dead man".
If Martin had overcome and killed Zimmerman I would be arguing in dubio pro reo for him.
posted by 2uo at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The pursuit in itself was the initiation of the confrontation!
posted by saulgoodman at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2013 [19 favorites]
How much more evidence do you need than Zimmerman by his own admission pursuing Martin even after police advised him not to?
For what is that supposed to be evidence? That he's an idiot, and maybe an asshole? Sure.
That he's a murderer? Not even close.
posted by 2uo at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2013
For what is that supposed to be evidence? That he's an idiot, and maybe an asshole? Sure.
That he's a murderer? Not even close.
posted by 2uo at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2013
Please tell, how could Zimmerman find out about his record on the spot?
Indeed, how could he have found out about his record? Or about his drug use, or intent, or any of a number of factors? What gave him that right, that power of judgement?
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Can I visit your wonderful alternate universe where this didn't happen? Because in that one, justice may have been served.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Indeed, how could he have found out about his record? Or about his drug use, or intent, or any of a number of factors? What gave him that right, that power of judgement?
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Can I visit your wonderful alternate universe where this didn't happen? Because in that one, justice may have been served.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Good thing he wasn't on trial for murder then.
posted by Green With You at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Green With You at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013
For what is that supposed to be evidence?
that the confrontation was unnecessary - and there are states where that would matter
posted by pyramid termite at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013
that the confrontation was unnecessary - and there are states where that would matter
posted by pyramid termite at 11:43 AM on July 14, 2013
Sorry "first degree".
posted by Green With You at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Green With You at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013
That he recklessly initiated an unlawful series of events that ended in manslaughter.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
''Attackers can now create situations where they are guaranteed to "win"''. Yes, like George Zimmerman did.
Possible. But not proven.
posted by 2uo at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013
Possible. But not proven.
posted by 2uo at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013
I'm writing to my state lawmakers today to ask that stand your ground be repealed here in Texas.
If I were inclined to press for legal changes in response to this incident, I'm not sure I'd start with changing the existing self-defense laws. Instead, I'd press for it to be a specific crime for a person to follow another person in public while armed (along the lines of a simple assault), and for a confrontation arising from such an event to be manslaughter regardless of who throws the first punch. As much as people have tried to stretch the law to say this is already the case, I don't think so (and would guess this is what the jury was thinking about regarding the manslaughter instruction).
posted by dsfan at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
If I were inclined to press for legal changes in response to this incident, I'm not sure I'd start with changing the existing self-defense laws. Instead, I'd press for it to be a specific crime for a person to follow another person in public while armed (along the lines of a simple assault), and for a confrontation arising from such an event to be manslaughter regardless of who throws the first punch. As much as people have tried to stretch the law to say this is already the case, I don't think so (and would guess this is what the jury was thinking about regarding the manslaughter instruction).
posted by dsfan at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Indeed, how could he have found out about his record? Or about his drug use, or intent, or any of a number of factors? What gave him that right, that power of judgement?
He could not and had not. Is that a trick question?
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Can I visit your wonderful alternate universe where this didn't happen? Because in that one, justice may have been served.
Maybe it's because I'm living far away with limited press coverage of that case and only so much intereset to read about it on the web. I gather that his character was a big issue in your press.
But it should not play a role in court. If it did, fix your justice system.
posted by 2uo at 11:47 AM on July 14, 2013
He could not and had not. Is that a trick question?
I don't because Martin does not stand trial. Look, Martin's character does nearly not matter at all.
Can I visit your wonderful alternate universe where this didn't happen? Because in that one, justice may have been served.
Maybe it's because I'm living far away with limited press coverage of that case and only so much intereset to read about it on the web. I gather that his character was a big issue in your press.
But it should not play a role in court. If it did, fix your justice system.
posted by 2uo at 11:47 AM on July 14, 2013
Why did the police even advise Zimmerman not to pursue Martin if it wasn't already obvious to them he was behaving recklessly and risking a confrontation? Of course it's obvious to any reasonable person Zimmerman was behaving recklessly. Causing someone's death through reckless behavior is what manslaughter charges are meant to penalize.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:48 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
2uo, with all due respect. You're not American, and you seem to not know or not care about the racial history in the American south that leads to people being upset about this.
posted by empath at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [44 favorites]
posted by empath at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2013 [44 favorites]
2uo, it did. That's the whole basis of the 'self-defense' claim.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2013
the version of the events for which there was the most evidence was that Trayon Martin initiated the physical attack and that George Zimmerman was being beaten and screaming for help for almost a minute before the shot.
Way to conflate two different things there. The only evidence we have that Martin initiated the attack is from Zimmerman, no one else. If that's not what happened, it completely changes the entire chain of events. The fact that the person who was trying not be accused of being a killer was the one who controlled the narrative of how the other was killed should be highly problematic. If you're hinging your entire argument of that as "proof," then you're assuming that, despite everything that you admit Zimmerman was doing wrong that night, he deserves to be trusted more. Bringing in drugs or street fighting or whatever else to prove that Martin deserves to be trusted less, even though it had nothing to do with that night, takes quite a bit of moral handwaving.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
Way to conflate two different things there. The only evidence we have that Martin initiated the attack is from Zimmerman, no one else. If that's not what happened, it completely changes the entire chain of events. The fact that the person who was trying not be accused of being a killer was the one who controlled the narrative of how the other was killed should be highly problematic. If you're hinging your entire argument of that as "proof," then you're assuming that, despite everything that you admit Zimmerman was doing wrong that night, he deserves to be trusted more. Bringing in drugs or street fighting or whatever else to prove that Martin deserves to be trusted less, even though it had nothing to do with that night, takes quite a bit of moral handwaving.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:50 AM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
I don't because Martin does not stand trial.
The original plan was to not bother putting Zimmerman on trial at all.
posted by deanc at 11:52 AM on July 14, 2013
The original plan was to not bother putting Zimmerman on trial at all.
posted by deanc at 11:52 AM on July 14, 2013
You're not American, and you seem to not know or not care about the racial history in the American south that leads to people being upset about this.
I do know about that history, but it doesn't look like a good idea to throw all justice overboard and just default-convict any white defendant in cases with black victims.
The real problem seems to me that many of you have lost trust in the justice system, thus demanding "common sense rulings" that amount to lynch mobs.
As I said, fix the system.
posted by 2uo at 11:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
I do know about that history, but it doesn't look like a good idea to throw all justice overboard and just default-convict any white defendant in cases with black victims.
The real problem seems to me that many of you have lost trust in the justice system, thus demanding "common sense rulings" that amount to lynch mobs.
As I said, fix the system.
posted by 2uo at 11:53 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
What did Zimmerman expect to happen when he chased Martin down? What was his plan, does anyone know?
posted by Teakettle at 11:53 AM on July 14, 2013
posted by Teakettle at 11:53 AM on July 14, 2013
He could not and had not. Is that a trick question?
No, that was the point: that everything that came after Zimmerman spotted Martin was based on a whole bunch of shitty information, and that for whatever reason, you're willing to disregard that over specious arguments about something Martin may or may not have done but was not doing that night, and certainly not when Zimmerman started the chain of events. It speaks to a bias that you seem unwilling to admit.
But it should not play a role in court. If it did, fix your justice system.
Which seems to be exactly what you're arguing against.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, that was the point: that everything that came after Zimmerman spotted Martin was based on a whole bunch of shitty information, and that for whatever reason, you're willing to disregard that over specious arguments about something Martin may or may not have done but was not doing that night, and certainly not when Zimmerman started the chain of events. It speaks to a bias that you seem unwilling to admit.
But it should not play a role in court. If it did, fix your justice system.
Which seems to be exactly what you're arguing against.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The law is race agnostic.
Well, as long as we don't consider the last couple of centuries, yeah.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Well, as long as we don't consider the last couple of centuries, yeah.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:54 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
2uo, it did. That's the whole basis of the 'self-defense' claim.
I'm honestly don't understand the second part. Can you help me?
So you say, character played a role in court. Okay, so far, so bad. But what's that to do with self-defense?
You don't defend against bad character, you defend against real actions.
posted by 2uo at 11:55 AM on July 14, 2013
I'm honestly don't understand the second part. Can you help me?
So you say, character played a role in court. Okay, so far, so bad. But what's that to do with self-defense?
You don't defend against bad character, you defend against real actions.
posted by 2uo at 11:55 AM on July 14, 2013
corb: A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
I'm usually pretty good with google, but there's a lot of cruft today. Can you provide a link to a statement by the President saying that he wanted Zimmerman convicted?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'm usually pretty good with google, but there's a lot of cruft today. Can you provide a link to a statement by the President saying that he wanted Zimmerman convicted?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
That may very well be the case, but it's equally possible that he was the attacker and Zimmerman was the victim. We'll never know. Courts don't establish "truth". They try to approximate it.
Yeah, we do know. We know that Trayvon Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him. It's not equally possible that Zimmerman was the victim of being followed for no reason.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Yeah, we do know. We know that Trayvon Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him. It's not equally possible that Zimmerman was the victim of being followed for no reason.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:56 AM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
As I said, fix the system.
With what, a magic fucking wand? The entrenched power structure is balanced against that happening, and those in power are becoming more and more successful in doing so. They just got permission from the highest court in the land to prevent the very same people affected by these laws from being able to vote to change them.
So, please, if you don't have the context or the history (which is very much in evidence here), don't try and lecture us.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
With what, a magic fucking wand? The entrenched power structure is balanced against that happening, and those in power are becoming more and more successful in doing so. They just got permission from the highest court in the land to prevent the very same people affected by these laws from being able to vote to change them.
So, please, if you don't have the context or the history (which is very much in evidence here), don't try and lecture us.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
No, that was the point: that everything that came after Zimmerman spotted Martin was based on a whole bunch of shitty information, and that for whatever reason, you're willing to disregard that over specious arguments about something Martin may or may not have done but was not doing that night, and certainly not when Zimmerman started the chain of events. It speaks to a bias that you seem unwilling to admit.
I wouldn't call it "information". More like prejudice or bigotry. And I don't ignore that. But as I said, unless you can prove Zimmerman preplanned all this until the death, it's just not terribly relevant (except in sentencing, I presume).
And I don't follow where I speculate about "may or may not, but did not". I speculate about the events as Zimmerman's attorney told them. That's what you need to disprove if you want to convict. Zimmerman does not need to prove his story, the state must disprove and prove its own story.
posted by 2uo at 11:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't call it "information". More like prejudice or bigotry. And I don't ignore that. But as I said, unless you can prove Zimmerman preplanned all this until the death, it's just not terribly relevant (except in sentencing, I presume).
And I don't follow where I speculate about "may or may not, but did not". I speculate about the events as Zimmerman's attorney told them. That's what you need to disprove if you want to convict. Zimmerman does not need to prove his story, the state must disprove and prove its own story.
posted by 2uo at 11:58 AM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's not equally possible that Zimmerman was the victim of being followed for no reason.
Yes, bad choice of words. I'll give you that your version may be more probable than Zimmerman's. But "beyond reasonable doubt"? Please...
posted by 2uo at 11:59 AM on July 14, 2013
Yes, bad choice of words. I'll give you that your version may be more probable than Zimmerman's. But "beyond reasonable doubt"? Please...
posted by 2uo at 11:59 AM on July 14, 2013
The real problem seems to me that many of you have lost trust in the justice system, thus demanding "common sense rulings" that amount to lynch mobs.
No, the real problem is that supposedly "colorblind" laws combined with racial prejudices have effectively turned the American justice system into a de facto tool for racial oppression. Read Michelle Alexander's book, it's important.
In the Zimmerman case, the law created a scenario where a white man can, without violating the law, hunt and kill a black youth without going to jail for it as long as he claims self defense. Saying that this is a travesty is not the same as creating a "lynch mob."
posted by graymouser at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
No, the real problem is that supposedly "colorblind" laws combined with racial prejudices have effectively turned the American justice system into a de facto tool for racial oppression. Read Michelle Alexander's book, it's important.
In the Zimmerman case, the law created a scenario where a white man can, without violating the law, hunt and kill a black youth without going to jail for it as long as he claims self defense. Saying that this is a travesty is not the same as creating a "lynch mob."
posted by graymouser at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
With what, a magic fucking wand?
I can see why you're frustrated, but wrecking down the remaining bits of democracy and justice to "get back at them" doesn't sound sensible.
Honestly, if you really believe that, go for a full revolution, not some minor change in the law.
posted by 2uo at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can see why you're frustrated, but wrecking down the remaining bits of democracy and justice to "get back at them" doesn't sound sensible.
Honestly, if you really believe that, go for a full revolution, not some minor change in the law.
posted by 2uo at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wrong. Manslaughter doesn't require intent or premeditation.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah, we do know. We know that Trayvon Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman started following him.
I think this is one of the salient points here. Some feel that Zimmerman following Martin was criminal negligence at best, others feel that it was perfectly lawful behavior. And I think that's a question that's not really getting enough traction.
If you're allowed to follow people with a gun because you (not a "reasonable person") think they're "suspicious", that's just a recipe for violent confrontation. On the other hand, if people aren't allowed to walk over someone to see what they're up to, that starts becoming a legal minefield in a hurry every time you walk down the street.
I don't know the answer to this, but we need to change something here.
posted by thegears at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think this is one of the salient points here. Some feel that Zimmerman following Martin was criminal negligence at best, others feel that it was perfectly lawful behavior. And I think that's a question that's not really getting enough traction.
If you're allowed to follow people with a gun because you (not a "reasonable person") think they're "suspicious", that's just a recipe for violent confrontation. On the other hand, if people aren't allowed to walk over someone to see what they're up to, that starts becoming a legal minefield in a hurry every time you walk down the street.
I don't know the answer to this, but we need to change something here.
posted by thegears at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
Corb, that really reads like right-wing bullshit, I too ask for a cite, or a retraction.
posted by edgeways at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
Corb, that really reads like right-wing bullshit, I too ask for a cite, or a retraction.
posted by edgeways at 12:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
The real analogy would be if you were followed at night (you assume by a creepy potential rapist), you confront the stalker, he kills you and gets off on self-defence. How is this law protecting you?
Well, for me: I'm perhaps strong for my size, but I'm a short woman. I took martial arts - Krav and combatives - and I still don't know how to non-lethally, without maiming, dispatch someone who is attacking me. My instinctive first response, non-armed, would be an eye gouge -it's effective and gives you a good chance of getting away. If I was allowed to be armed, then I would be able to shoot to stop my attacker.
Firearms are referred to as the "Great Equalizer": "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." With a firearm, I don't need to be a big, burly guy, capable of leveling someone with a punch, in order to be safe. I am my own protection. That's a huge, liberating thing.
If I were followed at night - and again, I have been - confronting the guy is rarely my idea. It's a bad idea. I would be trying to avoid a confrontation, by going to an area with people, calling 911 from my phone, knocking on someone's door, etc. But as someone remarked above, it is likely that Martin didn't feel he could do that. He did not have enough trust in the police system or in other people that they could or would help him. And that, that is the point where I think things went wrong and where they often do go wrong. Believing that no one else will help you means you have to take things into your own hands even before the person attacks you - and that is often a bad plan.
Can you provide a link to a statement by the President saying that he wanted Zimmerman convicted?
I don't think he made one - but by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman, from the start, and the involvement of the Justice Department, his wishes seem clear to me. However, that is definitely a matter of opinion.
posted by corb at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well, for me: I'm perhaps strong for my size, but I'm a short woman. I took martial arts - Krav and combatives - and I still don't know how to non-lethally, without maiming, dispatch someone who is attacking me. My instinctive first response, non-armed, would be an eye gouge -it's effective and gives you a good chance of getting away. If I was allowed to be armed, then I would be able to shoot to stop my attacker.
Firearms are referred to as the "Great Equalizer": "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." With a firearm, I don't need to be a big, burly guy, capable of leveling someone with a punch, in order to be safe. I am my own protection. That's a huge, liberating thing.
If I were followed at night - and again, I have been - confronting the guy is rarely my idea. It's a bad idea. I would be trying to avoid a confrontation, by going to an area with people, calling 911 from my phone, knocking on someone's door, etc. But as someone remarked above, it is likely that Martin didn't feel he could do that. He did not have enough trust in the police system or in other people that they could or would help him. And that, that is the point where I think things went wrong and where they often do go wrong. Believing that no one else will help you means you have to take things into your own hands even before the person attacks you - and that is often a bad plan.
Can you provide a link to a statement by the President saying that he wanted Zimmerman convicted?
I don't think he made one - but by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman, from the start, and the involvement of the Justice Department, his wishes seem clear to me. However, that is definitely a matter of opinion.
posted by corb at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Can you provide a link to a statement by the President saying that he wanted Zimmerman convicted?
Obviously not as no such statement exists in the real world.
posted by elizardbits at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Obviously not as no such statement exists in the real world.
posted by elizardbits at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
I speculate about the events as Zimmerman's attorney told them. That's what you need to disprove if you want to convict. Zimmerman does not need to prove his story, the state must disprove and prove its own story.
Christ, man, don't you get it? This is the problem. It's even mentioned in the OP!
I can see why you're frustrated, but wrecking down the remaining bits of democracy and justice to "get back at them" doesn't sound sensible.
"Rolling back shitty laws via the legislative process" is now destroying democracy? What the hell, dude?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
Christ, man, don't you get it? This is the problem. It's even mentioned in the OP!
I can see why you're frustrated, but wrecking down the remaining bits of democracy and justice to "get back at them" doesn't sound sensible.
"Rolling back shitty laws via the legislative process" is now destroying democracy? What the hell, dude?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
No, the real problem is that supposedly "colorblind" laws combined with racial prejudices have effectively turned the American justice system into a de facto tool for racial oppression. Read Michelle Alexander's book, it's important.
Thank you for that comment, that was a real highlight in the thread. Favorited.
I will look for that book on Amazon later today. But I certainly won't be able to read it in the next weeks. Still, thanks a lot for that pointer.
I guess there's much research about this interdependency of law and prejudice? Is it really the best way to change the law, not the prejudice? What are the unintentional side effects when changing the law to account for prejudices?
posted by 2uo at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Thank you for that comment, that was a real highlight in the thread. Favorited.
I will look for that book on Amazon later today. But I certainly won't be able to read it in the next weeks. Still, thanks a lot for that pointer.
I guess there's much research about this interdependency of law and prejudice? Is it really the best way to change the law, not the prejudice? What are the unintentional side effects when changing the law to account for prejudices?
posted by 2uo at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
2uo, you seem to be railing against something that's not happening. The law seems specifically designed to favor dangerous, violent white stalkers like Zimmerman against African Americans walking alone with no witnesses, and things like the stand-your-ground law were specifically designed to address white anxiety about crime to give them the confidence to shoot force and ask questions later.
As I said, if Zimmerman were convicted, would you be decrying the ruling, or would you argue that, even if not exactly "fair" to Zimmerman, it was an acceptable outcome? Because a lot of people are trying to cloak their approval of this outcome in a veneer of "detached respect for the law, which isn't always fair."
A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
Actually, as I said, the original plan was for Zimmerman not even to face "due process"-- the assumption was, "just another guy shooting someone in self defense. Move along, nothing to see here."
posted by deanc at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
As I said, if Zimmerman were convicted, would you be decrying the ruling, or would you argue that, even if not exactly "fair" to Zimmerman, it was an acceptable outcome? Because a lot of people are trying to cloak their approval of this outcome in a veneer of "detached respect for the law, which isn't always fair."
A reassurance in the American justice system, that even if the President of the United States himself wants you convicted, you still have due process of law.
Actually, as I said, the original plan was for Zimmerman not even to face "due process"-- the assumption was, "just another guy shooting someone in self defense. Move along, nothing to see here."
posted by deanc at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Obama's entire statement from 2012
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Furthermore, the assumption seems to be that sympathy for the victim and his family is somehow unfair to the immoral (if not illegal) perpetrator who caused his death. It is possible to believe both, but just coincidentally the people who think Zimmerman shouldn't have been convicted are on a hate-rage against Martin and anyone who sympathizes with his family. That tends to belie any of their claims of detached understanding of the law or any supposed claims they may have about trying to teach people to understand that life is unfair sometimes.
posted by deanc at 12:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by deanc at 12:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I speculate about the events as Zimmerman's attorney told them. That's what you need to disprove if you want to convict. Zimmerman does not need to prove his story, the state must disprove and prove its own story.
Christ, man, don't you get it? This is the problem. It's even mentioned in the OP!
You want to abolish the principle "in dubio pro reo" (by not requiring the state to prove their version) and think that's not a fundamental attack on justice and democracy?
I guess we'll just find no common ground here. Let's leave it at that.
posted by 2uo at 12:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Christ, man, don't you get it? This is the problem. It's even mentioned in the OP!
You want to abolish the principle "in dubio pro reo" (by not requiring the state to prove their version) and think that's not a fundamental attack on justice and democracy?
I guess we'll just find no common ground here. Let's leave it at that.
posted by 2uo at 12:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know why people expected a conviction. The argument of the pro-conviction camp is that Zimmerman incited the confrontation, so he is guilty of murder. According to this argument, it doesn't matter what Martin did after that point, no matter how unreasonable (although there is an assumption among the pro-conviction camp that Zimmerman must be lying, anyway). Well, I suspect the law is not so simple, and for good reason. What's the legal principle here that argues for a murder conviction? Zimmerman may be a dickhead racist, but there was never much chance that it was going to be proved that he committed murder, and it astounds me that anyone assumed otherwise.
Again, it's worth mentioning that a lot of people assume that Zimmerman lied about what happened. Maybe he did (he certainly has motive, if his actions were not appropriate), but there is no reason to assume that he was lying without proof. Being a racist asshole doesn't also mean that you always lie. Since nobody could prove otherwise, there is this whole presumption of innocence thing...
And just because he stupidly instigated the confrontation doesn't mean that Martin was entitled to beat him to death. If, as Zimmerman claims, Martin was slamming his head against the pavement, then those who say Zimmerman was unjustified in shooting Martin are essentially saying that it would have been acceptable for Martin to split his skull open. What is it that our mothers told us? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Just because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation doesn't mean he deserved to die, and if he didn't deserve to die, he had the right to defend himself. Again, this is all predicated on his story being true, but barring evidence to the contrary, what are we to assume really happened?
It seems to me like they could and should have gone after lesser charges, although I doubt that would have satisfied those calling for a trial. I never thought there was much of a chance for a conviction, unless some piece of damning evidence appeared, or the jury was heavily swayed by the pro-conviction camp. IMO, this was largely a show trial to appease the protesters.
posted by Edgewise at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
Again, it's worth mentioning that a lot of people assume that Zimmerman lied about what happened. Maybe he did (he certainly has motive, if his actions were not appropriate), but there is no reason to assume that he was lying without proof. Being a racist asshole doesn't also mean that you always lie. Since nobody could prove otherwise, there is this whole presumption of innocence thing...
And just because he stupidly instigated the confrontation doesn't mean that Martin was entitled to beat him to death. If, as Zimmerman claims, Martin was slamming his head against the pavement, then those who say Zimmerman was unjustified in shooting Martin are essentially saying that it would have been acceptable for Martin to split his skull open. What is it that our mothers told us? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Just because Zimmerman instigated the confrontation doesn't mean he deserved to die, and if he didn't deserve to die, he had the right to defend himself. Again, this is all predicated on his story being true, but barring evidence to the contrary, what are we to assume really happened?
It seems to me like they could and should have gone after lesser charges, although I doubt that would have satisfied those calling for a trial. I never thought there was much of a chance for a conviction, unless some piece of damning evidence appeared, or the jury was heavily swayed by the pro-conviction camp. IMO, this was largely a show trial to appease the protesters.
posted by Edgewise at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
How the Conservative Media Are Eating Up the Zimmerman Trial: It's all an Obama/Holder conspiracy, meant to keep the oppressed white man down.
posted by homunculus at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I guess there's much research about this interdependency of law and prejudice? Is it really the best way to change the law, not the prejudice? What are the unintentional side effects when changing the law to account for prejudices?
Alexander's book is primarily about the drug war, but much of the same logic applies here, and she lays out the case extremely well. It's an interaction of the way laws are enforced, how racial profiling works, and the difficulty of changing unjust laws. Alexander holds - and I believe this is correct - that nothing short of a new civil rights movement focused entirely on the criminal justice system as a form of New Jim Crow can change this. She looks at incremental changes in the law and how they don't help.
That a very similar logic is applying in cases of murder means, well, states have made it possible to kill people with impunity.
posted by graymouser at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Alexander's book is primarily about the drug war, but much of the same logic applies here, and she lays out the case extremely well. It's an interaction of the way laws are enforced, how racial profiling works, and the difficulty of changing unjust laws. Alexander holds - and I believe this is correct - that nothing short of a new civil rights movement focused entirely on the criminal justice system as a form of New Jim Crow can change this. She looks at incremental changes in the law and how they don't help.
That a very similar logic is applying in cases of murder means, well, states have made it possible to kill people with impunity.
posted by graymouser at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
the assumption seems to be that sympathy for the victim and his family
FTR: I don't feel like that. the outcome of this affair was a nightmare. And the Martin family deserves every comfort and prayer that they get.
posted by 2uo at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013
FTR: I don't feel like that. the outcome of this affair was a nightmare. And the Martin family deserves every comfort and prayer that they get.
posted by 2uo at 12:09 PM on July 14, 2013
Alexander's book is primarily about the drug war
Sounds very interesting.
She looks at incremental changes in the law and how they don't help.
So we're back to what I was saying: just changing the self-defense laws doesn't help much.
posted by 2uo at 12:11 PM on July 14, 2013
Sounds very interesting.
She looks at incremental changes in the law and how they don't help.
So we're back to what I was saying: just changing the self-defense laws doesn't help much.
posted by 2uo at 12:11 PM on July 14, 2013
Mod note: Please do not take this in the direction of arguing about rape. This discussion is hard enough as is. Thank you.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't think he made one - but by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman, from the start, and the involvement of the Justice Department, his wishes seem clear to me. However, that is definitely a matter of opinion.
Because heavens forfend a black President say that, if he had a son, he would look like another black family's son. Or that we should take a calm and measured look at the events of that night. Or that the Justice Department sends down not a contingent of jackbooted thugs and racial antagonists, but a team of mediators to sit down with the parties involved to the effusive praise of the local government.
Jesus wept. I mean, at the very least for once you could stop copy-pasting the arguments of the bottom-dreg racist fuckwits, y'know?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [35 favorites]
Because heavens forfend a black President say that, if he had a son, he would look like another black family's son. Or that we should take a calm and measured look at the events of that night. Or that the Justice Department sends down not a contingent of jackbooted thugs and racial antagonists, but a team of mediators to sit down with the parties involved to the effusive praise of the local government.
Jesus wept. I mean, at the very least for once you could stop copy-pasting the arguments of the bottom-dreg racist fuckwits, y'know?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [35 favorites]
From a European point of view, you might change the first part to "If you're allowed to carry a gun...", but I know, we're just weak.
No, I'm with you there, I just do think concealed carry is going anywhere anytime soon. Probably more productive to limit its scope than to try to get rid of it.
I think where you're running into a problem with the US mefiites here is that in many states you're required to try to de-escalate violence when possible rather than charging in. Florida, as of 2005, is not such a state. As such, some of use think that were not the 2005 law on the book, he might have been found guilty, since the onus would be on him to show that he acted in self-defense.
In general, self-defense arguments place the burden of proof on the defendant in the US, not the prosecution, since it's extraordinarily hard to prove that someone didn't feel they were threatened.
posted by thegears at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, I'm with you there, I just do think concealed carry is going anywhere anytime soon. Probably more productive to limit its scope than to try to get rid of it.
I think where you're running into a problem with the US mefiites here is that in many states you're required to try to de-escalate violence when possible rather than charging in. Florida, as of 2005, is not such a state. As such, some of use think that were not the 2005 law on the book, he might have been found guilty, since the onus would be on him to show that he acted in self-defense.
In general, self-defense arguments place the burden of proof on the defendant in the US, not the prosecution, since it's extraordinarily hard to prove that someone didn't feel they were threatened.
posted by thegears at 12:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I guess Edgewise is just more eloquent than me. Really well said.
posted by 2uo at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by 2uo at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013
I have a question about trial strategy that I've found confusing (probably because most of what I know about the law and trials comes from a series of popular television shows): If Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, why didn't he testify? While I understand the right not to self-incriminate means that many (most?) people who are on trial for murder don't testify to say "nope, not me wasn't there at all!" and sit back and let the prosecution prove that it WAS them; in cases where you're claiming that killing the other person was justified (either for self-defense or insanity reasons) don't you have to testify to establish your mental state or reasoning or fear or... what those justified reasons WERE?
It seemed to go down to the last minute that he might testify (I did see the back and forth about that between the defense lawyers and the judge) and then he didn't. So did his claim of justification come just from the interviews he gave? And ... weren't those introduced by the prosecution?
That part is confusing to me. If they hadn't introduced those, then it would be up to the defense to do that, right? Which... would they have done so? If they did, would that trigger a requirement for Zimmerman to testify if called then by the prosecution to rebut something?
Anyway, if someone could help me sort that out I'd appreciate it. When I heard he was pleading self-defence I thought we'd hear (some bullshitty) testimony from him.
posted by marylynn at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It seemed to go down to the last minute that he might testify (I did see the back and forth about that between the defense lawyers and the judge) and then he didn't. So did his claim of justification come just from the interviews he gave? And ... weren't those introduced by the prosecution?
That part is confusing to me. If they hadn't introduced those, then it would be up to the defense to do that, right? Which... would they have done so? If they did, would that trigger a requirement for Zimmerman to testify if called then by the prosecution to rebut something?
Anyway, if someone could help me sort that out I'd appreciate it. When I heard he was pleading self-defence I thought we'd hear (some bullshitty) testimony from him.
posted by marylynn at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
So we're back to what I was saying: just changing the self-defense laws doesn't help much.
Frankly, I think the only good that could come out of this would be if this verdict were to actually be the thing that starts a new civil rights movement in this country.
posted by graymouser at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Frankly, I think the only good that could come out of this would be if this verdict were to actually be the thing that starts a new civil rights movement in this country.
posted by graymouser at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I do not know how anyone could have followed this trial and thought that the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I know almost everyone here has a certain (rather melodramatic) movie of the events running in their heads and refers to that rather than to the actual evidence available when determining Zimmerman's guilt, but if you just look at the actual evidence presented in the trial this outcome was entirely predictable.
I don't know how anyone could confront the exigency of Zimmerman shooting Martin and the subsequent events and restrict their focus to legal questions in the face of overwhelming evidence that systemic racism and other problems undermine if not completely destroy confidence that our justice system is in fact just.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I don't know how anyone could confront the exigency of Zimmerman shooting Martin and the subsequent events and restrict their focus to legal questions in the face of overwhelming evidence that systemic racism and other problems undermine if not completely destroy confidence that our justice system is in fact just.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I think where you're running into a problem with the US mefiites here is that in many states you're required to try to de-escalate violence when possible rather than charging in.
Probably you#re right. my cultural background is just different, as I said earlier, all those Stand your Ground laws look pretty weak to me.
Here law professors actually write about the "ignominious flight" when discussing self-defense. :-)
posted by 2uo at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013
Probably you#re right. my cultural background is just different, as I said earlier, all those Stand your Ground laws look pretty weak to me.
Here law professors actually write about the "ignominious flight" when discussing self-defense. :-)
posted by 2uo at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013
When they talk about "crazy paranoid (ex) military types", they are insensitive to veterans.
I tend to agree. Most people who have these kinds of paranoid beliefs are not veterans. I would say that the dangerous ones are the (para) military types-- those not associated with the military who nevertheless (like Zimmerman) develop a fixation of firearms and violent enforcement of "order". Their association with the military is purely aesthetic, though certain people who actually were in the military are like this as well.
by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman,
Excuse me, but I think that sympathy should have been expressed for Martin, regardless of whether Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. I didn't know you weren't supposed to express sympathy for high school students walking home to see their family.
corb, is this about "outrage over the outrage" or do you genuinely have some kind of admiration for Zimmerman, here? Because I have a feeling that you wouldn't be scolding Zimmerman's supporters for not respecting the law had he been convicted.
posted by deanc at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
I tend to agree. Most people who have these kinds of paranoid beliefs are not veterans. I would say that the dangerous ones are the (para) military types-- those not associated with the military who nevertheless (like Zimmerman) develop a fixation of firearms and violent enforcement of "order". Their association with the military is purely aesthetic, though certain people who actually were in the military are like this as well.
by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman,
Excuse me, but I think that sympathy should have been expressed for Martin, regardless of whether Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. I didn't know you weren't supposed to express sympathy for high school students walking home to see their family.
corb, is this about "outrage over the outrage" or do you genuinely have some kind of admiration for Zimmerman, here? Because I have a feeling that you wouldn't be scolding Zimmerman's supporters for not respecting the law had he been convicted.
posted by deanc at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
I don't know how anyone could confront the exigency of Zimmerman shooting Martin and the subsequent events and restrict their focus to legal questions in the face of overwhelming evidence that systemic racism and other problems undermine if not completely destroy confidence that our justice system is in fact just.
When the jury is unable to do just that (i.e. confine their decision to the legal questions), then they have failed.
posted by Edgewise at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013
When the jury is unable to do just that (i.e. confine their decision to the legal questions), then they have failed.
posted by Edgewise at 12:15 PM on July 14, 2013
As I said, if Zimmerman were convicted, would you be decrying the ruling, or would you argue that, even if not exactly "fair" to Zimmerman, it was an acceptable outcome?
If Zimmerman had been convicted, I would have been sad. I would have gone to Metafilter, probably seen a lot of celebratory postings, and been even sadder. And I would have gone to the internet and said how heartbroken I was that external forces were able to infuence a jury verdict. I would not have come in and started talking about how Martin was just one of a broader class of people looking to beat people every day. I think the amount of people talking about "dangerous white people" in this thread - especially when Zimmerman is not and never has been white - is really upsetting. I would not be out in the streets protesting. I would not be insulting people based on their beliefs. And you would certainly not catch me trying to boycott the entire state of Florida due to one jury verdict.
posted by corb at 12:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
If Zimmerman had been convicted, I would have been sad. I would have gone to Metafilter, probably seen a lot of celebratory postings, and been even sadder. And I would have gone to the internet and said how heartbroken I was that external forces were able to infuence a jury verdict. I would not have come in and started talking about how Martin was just one of a broader class of people looking to beat people every day. I think the amount of people talking about "dangerous white people" in this thread - especially when Zimmerman is not and never has been white - is really upsetting. I would not be out in the streets protesting. I would not be insulting people based on their beliefs. And you would certainly not catch me trying to boycott the entire state of Florida due to one jury verdict.
posted by corb at 12:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
You want to abolish the principle "in dubio pro reo" (by not requiring the state to prove their version) and think that's not a fundamental attack on justice and democracy?
Since that's not what I was saying, no. I'm talking about laws like SYG that go the entire other direction and have no factual basis in crime reduction then or now.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:16 PM on July 14, 2013
Since that's not what I was saying, no. I'm talking about laws like SYG that go the entire other direction and have no factual basis in crime reduction then or now.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:16 PM on July 14, 2013
Firearms are referred to as the "Great Equalizer": "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." With a firearm, I don't need to be a big, burly guy, capable of leveling someone with a punch, in order to be safe. I am my own protection. That's a huge, liberating thing.
When the victim is 17 - a minor unable to legally own a firearm, there is zero chance at any equalizing, there is zero same protection, there is zero likeness in the liberation to feel safe. I mean really - my god, what the hell was this boy supposed to do?
posted by raztaj at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
When the victim is 17 - a minor unable to legally own a firearm, there is zero chance at any equalizing, there is zero same protection, there is zero likeness in the liberation to feel safe. I mean really - my god, what the hell was this boy supposed to do?
posted by raztaj at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
Chances are, your state has some form of expanded Castle Doctrine, and these laws are changing constantly. Alaska just passed a Stand Your Ground bill, for example. Everyone concerned would do well to make their feelings known with their own state representative(s).
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013
I don't think he made one - but by expressing sympathy with Martin, not Zimmerman, from the start, and the involvement of the Justice Department, his wishes seem clear to me.
Agreed, President Obama probably wishes that George hadn't decided to cowboy up and had stayed in the car. That way, Trayvon would be probably still be alive and George wouldn't be so horribly depressed because he killed an innocent human being. WIN WIN.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [32 favorites]
Agreed, President Obama probably wishes that George hadn't decided to cowboy up and had stayed in the car. That way, Trayvon would be probably still be alive and George wouldn't be so horribly depressed because he killed an innocent human being. WIN WIN.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [32 favorites]
Firearms are referred to as the "Great Equalizer": "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal."
That's a sales pitch made by a gun manufacturer, that continues to be used by the Gun Manufacturers' sales lobby with as much demonstrable truth as "More Doctors Smoke Our Brand of Cigareetes". Except Big Tobacco never had an organization like the NRA getting their users/victims to pay for their lobbying. If they had, lung cancer deaths would be rising as quickly as gun deaths.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
That's a sales pitch made by a gun manufacturer, that continues to be used by the Gun Manufacturers' sales lobby with as much demonstrable truth as "More Doctors Smoke Our Brand of Cigareetes". Except Big Tobacco never had an organization like the NRA getting their users/victims to pay for their lobbying. If they had, lung cancer deaths would be rising as quickly as gun deaths.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'm sorry corb, but someone who says it's not appropriate to express sympathy for the death of a teenager at the hands of a gun-firing wacko, however legally allowable, is a monster. I don't care if the killer didn't technically commit a crime. The sympathy is to be expressed with the victim.
Your "fundamental rights" do not include the rights to be honored or admired. Zimmerman is going to be regarded by right-thinking people as vermin for the rest of his life, and Martin's family will receive sympathy as victims.
People don't understand what their "rights" are. Zimmerman had the "right" to a fair trial (which he wasn't even going to get-- the rights of the public were going to be abrogated). He doesn't have the "right" to sympathy, admiration, or the benefit of the doubt.
posted by deanc at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [49 favorites]
Your "fundamental rights" do not include the rights to be honored or admired. Zimmerman is going to be regarded by right-thinking people as vermin for the rest of his life, and Martin's family will receive sympathy as victims.
People don't understand what their "rights" are. Zimmerman had the "right" to a fair trial (which he wasn't even going to get-- the rights of the public were going to be abrogated). He doesn't have the "right" to sympathy, admiration, or the benefit of the doubt.
posted by deanc at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [49 favorites]
When the jury is unable to do just that (i.e. confine their decision to the legal questions), then they have failed.
Which is why it is incumbent on everyone not presently sitting on a jury (citizens, legislators, jurists, lawyers) to do everything in their power to root out the inequities that have been codified in our system of laws and set deeply in our culture.
The fervor with which some wish to confine the debate over Zimmerman's actions to legal questions and strenuously avoid questions of racism and reforming laws contributes to our not addressing the problems that this case like so many tragic others demand that we address.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Which is why it is incumbent on everyone not presently sitting on a jury (citizens, legislators, jurists, lawyers) to do everything in their power to root out the inequities that have been codified in our system of laws and set deeply in our culture.
The fervor with which some wish to confine the debate over Zimmerman's actions to legal questions and strenuously avoid questions of racism and reforming laws contributes to our not addressing the problems that this case like so many tragic others demand that we address.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I would have gone to the internet and said how heartbroken I was that external forces were able to infuence a jury verdict
But not about the external influential force of hundreds of years of institutionalized racism and violence against PoC's?
posted by elizardbits at 12:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
But not about the external influential force of hundreds of years of institutionalized racism and violence against PoC's?
posted by elizardbits at 12:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
Which is why it is incumbent on everyone not presently sitting on a jury (citizens, legislators, jurists, lawyers) to do everything in their power to root out the inequities that have been codified in our system of laws and set deeply in our culture.
This is a great point. The fact that there were no Black women on the jury is obviously problematic, but teaching everyone about the importance of acknowledging privilege would have balanced that out a bit.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:25 PM on July 14, 2013
This is a great point. The fact that there were no Black women on the jury is obviously problematic, but teaching everyone about the importance of acknowledging privilege would have balanced that out a bit.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:25 PM on July 14, 2013
If Zimmerman had been convicted, I would have been sad.
Why? Really, what is someone else's suffering to you? What has someone else's suffering ever been to you? Stuff happens to people all the time, and the majesty of the law, being what it is, doesn't always produce what we regard as moral outcomes, but are what they are. Life is unfair to people sometimes, and had Zimmerman been convicted, I would have hoped that you would have respected that sometimes these things happen and not everyone gets what they want, but everyone gets a fair shot (no pun intended). Certainly, I would have thought that you would have regarded it wrong to question the workings of the law, which treat everyone more-or-less equally once they get to trial (which was, obviously, sort of an effort in Zimmerman's neighborhood).
You can drone on and on about how life is unfair, sometimes, and we should all just accept it, but sometimes it's going to be your ox than gets gored. Trayvon Martin got treated unfairly and awfully and is dead, and you're like, "well, that's the way the cookie crumbles." But if you thought Zimmerman were to be treated unfairly and got some years behind bars, you would have regarded this as some kind of legal travesty.
posted by deanc at 12:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Why? Really, what is someone else's suffering to you? What has someone else's suffering ever been to you? Stuff happens to people all the time, and the majesty of the law, being what it is, doesn't always produce what we regard as moral outcomes, but are what they are. Life is unfair to people sometimes, and had Zimmerman been convicted, I would have hoped that you would have respected that sometimes these things happen and not everyone gets what they want, but everyone gets a fair shot (no pun intended). Certainly, I would have thought that you would have regarded it wrong to question the workings of the law, which treat everyone more-or-less equally once they get to trial (which was, obviously, sort of an effort in Zimmerman's neighborhood).
You can drone on and on about how life is unfair, sometimes, and we should all just accept it, but sometimes it's going to be your ox than gets gored. Trayvon Martin got treated unfairly and awfully and is dead, and you're like, "well, that's the way the cookie crumbles." But if you thought Zimmerman were to be treated unfairly and got some years behind bars, you would have regarded this as some kind of legal travesty.
posted by deanc at 12:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Chances are, your state has some form of expanded Castle Doctrine, and these laws are changing constantly.
I've said it before here, and I'll say it again. I'll never buy a gun unless I specifically intend to murder somebody (which I probably won't, but I'm happy to have that option). Guns are crap as a defensive weapon but awesome for offense*. (Oh, and I'll use Zimmerman's method of ensuring I don't get convicted of murder... and no, these internet statements will not be admissible, trust me)
*and the NRA has been very effective at making sure that more effective defensive weapons are overregulated or just kept off the market, despite the fact that they SHOULD all be covered under the 2nd Amendment
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2013
I've said it before here, and I'll say it again. I'll never buy a gun unless I specifically intend to murder somebody (which I probably won't, but I'm happy to have that option). Guns are crap as a defensive weapon but awesome for offense*. (Oh, and I'll use Zimmerman's method of ensuring I don't get convicted of murder... and no, these internet statements will not be admissible, trust me)
*and the NRA has been very effective at making sure that more effective defensive weapons are overregulated or just kept off the market, despite the fact that they SHOULD all be covered under the 2nd Amendment
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2013
Really, what is someone else's suffering to you?
I'm not sure that's a great point. Trayvon Martin's suffering means a great deal to me, and many people posting here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure that's a great point. Trayvon Martin's suffering means a great deal to me, and many people posting here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
But not about the external influential force of hundreds of years of institutionalized racism and violence against PoC's?
Oh. You're one of THEM.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh. You're one of THEM.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Mod note: I know it's really hard, folks, but we do not need another episode of The Corb Show in here.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
I would like to see an infographic of every single person who has ever been found guilty of murder or manslaughter in Florida
Not exactly what you are looking for but Tampa Bay Times did some research on SYG cases and their outcomes.
Article here, infographic here
posted by snaparapans at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not exactly what you are looking for but Tampa Bay Times did some research on SYG cases and their outcomes.
Article here, infographic here
posted by snaparapans at 12:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure that's a great point. Trayvon Martin's suffering means a great deal to me, and many people posting here.
But to some people, even so much as expressing sympathy with Martin is considered offensive. But coincidentally are falling all over themselves to sympathize with Zimmerman.
posted by deanc at 12:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
But to some people, even so much as expressing sympathy with Martin is considered offensive. But coincidentally are falling all over themselves to sympathize with Zimmerman.
posted by deanc at 12:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Racial bias reverberates in our society like the primordial Big Bang. Jesse Jackson made the point in a dramatic way when he acknowledged that he feels a sense of relief when the footsteps he hears behind him in the dead of night turn out to belong to white feet. Social scientists who study our hidden biases make the same point in a more sober way with statistics that demonstrate that we are more likely to associate black people with negative words and imagery than we are white people. It's an association that devalues the humanity of black people, particularly black youth like Trayvon Martin.7/14/2013 email from Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen
George Zimmerman probably saw race the night of February 26, 2012, just like so many of us probably would have. Had he not, Trayvon probably would be alive today.
The jury has spoken. Now, we must speak out against the racial bias that still infects our society and distorts our perception of the world. And we must do something about it.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman was not even cross examined, was he? So, why does his version of events gain any credibility?
posted by asra at 12:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by asra at 12:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
My personal experience is that the two incidents in which I felt most threatened, the threat came from white dudes 'like me'. So I'd be less relieved than Jesse Jackson.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Zimmerman was not even cross examined, was he? So, why does his version of events gain any credibility?
Obviously the Special Prosecutor accepted his version, just like the local police who decided not to arrest him in the first place.
I said it before: a racial role reversal would've gotten a totally different result.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:43 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Obviously the Special Prosecutor accepted his version, just like the local police who decided not to arrest him in the first place.
I said it before: a racial role reversal would've gotten a totally different result.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:43 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Zimmerman was not even cross examined, was he? So, why does his version of events gain any credibility?"
It doesn't need to have credibility. Go ahead and assign it credibility zero.
The state still needs to prove another version in court, thus disproving his version.
posted by 2uo at 12:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
It doesn't need to have credibility. Go ahead and assign it credibility zero.
The state still needs to prove another version in court, thus disproving his version.
posted by 2uo at 12:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
2uo: again, it's not that simple. In the US, in most states, the state does not need to prove you didn't act in self-defense.
All the state has to do is prove you killed someone intentionally. Then it's on you to prove you acted reasonably in not doing so.
posted by thegears at 12:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
All the state has to do is prove you killed someone intentionally. Then it's on you to prove you acted reasonably in not doing so.
posted by thegears at 12:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Hispanic is not a race.
posted by spitbull at 12:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 12:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Nor is anti-black racism the same as all other racial hegemony, especially in matters related to justice before the law.
posted by spitbull at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by spitbull at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2013
this whole wanting a legal right to kill somebody is something i hadn't known existed. i mean, i knew about Stand Your Ground, but had sort of thought that it was a weird thing in one state. i didn't know people were cheering on the concept of legalized killing.
posted by angrycat at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
thegears: In the US, in most states, the state does not need to prove you didn't act in self-defense.
That is incorrect thegears, Ohio is the only state that where the defendant bears burden of proof through out the trial.
posted by snaparapans at 12:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
That is incorrect thegears, Ohio is the only state that where the defendant bears burden of proof through out the trial.
posted by snaparapans at 12:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Biologically, humans really don't have 'races' at all, it's all a bit of jiggery joo, so you can just as accuractly say 'Hispanic' is a 'race' just as any other... Just get enough people to agree with you and it magically exists.
posted by edgeways at 12:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by edgeways at 12:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Zimmerman was not even cross examined, was he? So, why does his version of events gain any credibility?
He wasn't cross examined because he chose not to take the stand, which is his right. He would have been incredibly stupid to have done so.
It's not that Zimmerman's case stood, it was that the prosecutor's case was not proven.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
He wasn't cross examined because he chose not to take the stand, which is his right. He would have been incredibly stupid to have done so.
It's not that Zimmerman's case stood, it was that the prosecutor's case was not proven.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Beyond a racial role reversal; imagine the economic role reversal - how much did Zimmerman's defense cost? $250k? $500k? More?
Zimmerman had $100k of his own to begin with. No matter how broke he is now; without that feeder money to initiate a defense process, web funding, retainers; he'd probably be either in jail awaiting trial, or already sent through the system and passing time in hotel greybar.
posted by buzzman at 12:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Zimmerman had $100k of his own to begin with. No matter how broke he is now; without that feeder money to initiate a defense process, web funding, retainers; he'd probably be either in jail awaiting trial, or already sent through the system and passing time in hotel greybar.
posted by buzzman at 12:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Can I pose a theoretical question to those familiar with the details of the case and the law? Suppose that the one person of color on the jury was familiar with jury nullification and convinced all the jurors to convict even though the prosecution did not meet its requirements. Would the conviction stand? Would the defense file for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict, and would the judge grant it?
posted by Rhomboid at 12:57 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Rhomboid at 12:57 PM on July 14, 2013
edgeways, I know that. My comment refers to socially constructed difference.
posted by spitbull at 12:58 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by spitbull at 12:58 PM on July 14, 2013
Rhomboid: I believe that if the jurors came out and said "yeah we convicted him even though the state didn't prove its case" the conviction could be vacated. But if they just kept silent about their reasoning how would anyone know that was what happened?
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:59 PM on July 14, 2013
Saying Hispanic is not a race is like saying Asian is not a race.
It's all arbitrary lines based on geographical boundaries and skin tones.
Rhomboid, that's not typically how jury nullification works.Usually it's used to set aside the conviction of a shit case, not to institute one. You can't make the rest of the jury go along with you (and if you do, that's how the process works), but you can maintain your own vote in the face of the rest, thereby making a hung jury. If all vote for conviction the conviction stands.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's all arbitrary lines based on geographical boundaries and skin tones.
Rhomboid, that's not typically how jury nullification works.Usually it's used to set aside the conviction of a shit case, not to institute one. You can't make the rest of the jury go along with you (and if you do, that's how the process works), but you can maintain your own vote in the face of the rest, thereby making a hung jury. If all vote for conviction the conviction stands.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And to elaborate, my point is that non-Black Hispanics, even in Florida, are not classified as objects of state violence or legal discrimination the way blacks (including Hispanic blacks) have been historically. Because slavery.
posted by spitbull at 1:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 1:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I went to a vigil for Trayvon last night, and there was a warning on the event's facebook page: "We are not expecting arrests but we do not trust police or ever assume they will not be violent." No violence last night, thank goodness, but who knows what will happen as the vigil/rally continues tonight.
My state has stand your ground laws too. I'm sure some creative racist, police or otherwise, could find a way to claim that a group of mourning people with candles (many of whom were people of color) constitutes a threat or a riot. It breaks my heart that public expressions of grief and rage, especially rage over institutional racism, need that kind of disclaimer.
posted by ActionPopulated at 1:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
My state has stand your ground laws too. I'm sure some creative racist, police or otherwise, could find a way to claim that a group of mourning people with candles (many of whom were people of color) constitutes a threat or a riot. It breaks my heart that public expressions of grief and rage, especially rage over institutional racism, need that kind of disclaimer.
posted by ActionPopulated at 1:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
this whole wanting a legal right to kill somebody is something i hadn't known existed.
"Wanting to kill" is too strong, I mean, we're not psychos. And honestly, I don't know if I could actually exercise the "right to kill" in such a situation.
But I know for sure that I don't want the law to say "die like a man" when someone attacks me.
I believe that self-preservation is such a natural urge and ethical imperative, that any law requiring a human to silently suffer his own death is prima facie unjust and against natural law.
posted by 2uo at 1:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Wanting to kill" is too strong, I mean, we're not psychos. And honestly, I don't know if I could actually exercise the "right to kill" in such a situation.
But I know for sure that I don't want the law to say "die like a man" when someone attacks me.
I believe that self-preservation is such a natural urge and ethical imperative, that any law requiring a human to silently suffer his own death is prima facie unjust and against natural law.
posted by 2uo at 1:02 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's all arbitrary lines based on geographical boundaries and skin tones.
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish. It's an arbitrary collection of nations put together by Spanish imperialism and has nothing to do with skin color.
posted by elizardbits at 1:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish. It's an arbitrary collection of nations put together by Spanish imperialism and has nothing to do with skin color.
posted by elizardbits at 1:03 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
I'm sure some creative racist, police or otherwise, could find a way to claim that a group of mourning people with candles (many of whom were people of color) constitutes a threat or a riot.
Is that for rhetorical effect or do you honestly believe that?
posted by 2uo at 1:03 PM on July 14, 2013
Is that for rhetorical effect or do you honestly believe that?
posted by 2uo at 1:03 PM on July 14, 2013
I find it worrisome that thirty years after its publication, Stephen King's It is still such an accurate depiction of race hatred and prejudice in America, and of that feeling of there being a horrible, festering sickness that everybody knows is there but tries to pretend they can't see, so well that they often lose their ability to see it at all.
(I know that's a very stupid way of thinking about all this, but it's something I can't get off my mind today.)
posted by Rory Marinich at 1:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
(I know that's a very stupid way of thinking about all this, but it's something I can't get off my mind today.)
posted by Rory Marinich at 1:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish. Yes, but don't call someone who believes themselves to be upper-class who is a native spanish speaker, hispanic.
They usually identify with the imperialists not the natives.
posted by snaparapans at 1:06 PM on July 14, 2013
They usually identify with the imperialists not the natives.
posted by snaparapans at 1:06 PM on July 14, 2013
What would be the possible civil cases against Zimmerman that might be coming?
posted by robbyrobs at 1:06 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by robbyrobs at 1:06 PM on July 14, 2013
Is that for rhetorical effect or do you honestly believe that?
Again, I think this is not a helpful position to take in a discussion of race issues in the USA. There have been plenty of instances throughout US history in which nonviolent protest was met with extreme violence from authorities and in which nonviolent protesters were treated as though they were violent rioting anarchists. The fact that you are somehow unaware of this widely-known historical information is troubling in the context of this discussion and the points of view that you seem unable to grasp.
posted by elizardbits at 1:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
Again, I think this is not a helpful position to take in a discussion of race issues in the USA. There have been plenty of instances throughout US history in which nonviolent protest was met with extreme violence from authorities and in which nonviolent protesters were treated as though they were violent rioting anarchists. The fact that you are somehow unaware of this widely-known historical information is troubling in the context of this discussion and the points of view that you seem unable to grasp.
posted by elizardbits at 1:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [45 favorites]
2uo: that's exactly what this ruling has said to Trayvon Martin. His only offense was defending himself with non-lethal force and the law has now sanctioned his death for fighting back against a much older man who we know was pursuing him unlawfully and against explicit police advice not to pursue him.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 1:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
His only offense was defending himself
Proof of imminent attack? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
with non-lethal force
Proof? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
You see, the situation in court is inherently asymmetric. Nobody cares about "probable", only about "beyond reasonable doubt".
Outside criminal law, i.e. in internet fora or in a civil case, sure, the standards are different. But in criminal court you just can't be that laissez-faire with burden of proof.
posted by 2uo at 1:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Proof of imminent attack? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
with non-lethal force
Proof? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
You see, the situation in court is inherently asymmetric. Nobody cares about "probable", only about "beyond reasonable doubt".
Outside criminal law, i.e. in internet fora or in a civil case, sure, the standards are different. But in criminal court you just can't be that laissez-faire with burden of proof.
posted by 2uo at 1:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
O'Mara seemed extremely confident that Zimmerman will receive immunity from civil action. So bizarre how he escapes from all legal consequences while the HOA had to pay out a settlement to the family and his wife may be convicted on the perjury charges.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:13 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Drinky Die at 1:13 PM on July 14, 2013
I missed this somehow- why was the jury made up of 6 women, instead of 12 people of mixed sexes?
posted by small_ruminant at 1:14 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by small_ruminant at 1:14 PM on July 14, 2013
2uo, considering that I live in a place where police fire-bombed a whole city block in response to an Afro-centric political movement, yes, I do stand by my statement above.
posted by ActionPopulated at 1:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
posted by ActionPopulated at 1:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [25 favorites]
You don't NEED 12 on a jury unless there's a first degree murder charge. And there's no requirement at all about the racial or gender makeup of a jury.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:16 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:16 PM on July 14, 2013
Nevermind- here's why- Florida law says 6 people except for capital cases.
Also, Zimmerman says killing Martin was all God's plan.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, Zimmerman says killing Martin was all God's plan.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, Zimmerman says killing Martin was all God's plan yt .
I forgot about that. Christ, what an asshole.
posted by homunculus at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I forgot about that. Christ, what an asshole.
posted by homunculus at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Not only Zimmerman talking to god:
posted by snaparapans at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
In Sanford, the modest Central Florida city where Mr. Martin was killed, the Rev. Valarie J. Houston drew shouts of support and outrage as decried the “the racism and the injustice that pollute the air in America.”NYT
“Lord, I thank you for sending Trayvon to reveal the injustices, God, that live in Sanford,” she said.
posted by snaparapans at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also, Zimmerman says killing Martin was all God's plan yt .
He said that? Maybe he belongs neither in freedom nor prison, but in some mental institution. Incredible.
posted by 2uo at 1:26 PM on July 14, 2013
He said that? Maybe he belongs neither in freedom nor prison, but in some mental institution. Incredible.
posted by 2uo at 1:26 PM on July 14, 2013
Mod note: Deleted a derail. Please try to be kind, folks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:29 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:29 PM on July 14, 2013
Maybe it's because I'm living far away with limited press coverage of that case and only so much intereset to read about it on the web.
It is a national disgrace that you are being forced to post so much on this thing about which you have little interest and less knowledge. Has the European Court of Human Rights no jurisdiction in this unreasonable compulsion?
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [43 favorites]
It is a national disgrace that you are being forced to post so much on this thing about which you have little interest and less knowledge. Has the European Court of Human Rights no jurisdiction in this unreasonable compulsion?
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [43 favorites]
Also, Zimmerman says killing Martin was all God's plan
I do not think this is how "suffer the children" is generally parsed.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I do not think this is how "suffer the children" is generally parsed.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe it's because I'm living far away with limited press coverage of that case and only so much intereset to read about it on the web.
And yet for some reason a huge interest in having other people read what you say about it on the web. This might be a good time for some introspection.
posted by davejay at 1:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
And yet for some reason a huge interest in having other people read what you say about it on the web. This might be a good time for some introspection.
posted by davejay at 1:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
National disgrace? It is a national disgrace, IMO, that so many talking heads in US media, are making up stuff to suit their agendas, with little interest in the actual case, and less knowledge.
posted by snaparapans at 1:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by snaparapans at 1:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"I hope that this is the end," Rove said. "President Obama politicized this at the beginning of it, I believe, unfortunately, by injecting himself into it and saying that if Trayvon Martin -- that if he'd have had a son it would look like Trayvon Martin."
IT would look like? Goodness.
posted by davejay at 1:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
IT would look like? Goodness.
posted by davejay at 1:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
where police fire-bombed a whole city block in response to an Afro-centric political movement, yes, I do stand by my statement above.
I'm not getting this correlation, that philly mess was 25 plus years ago. A better example may be detroit circa 1967. Alot of police sought to quell uprisings during that time as did many civil rights leaders. You lost a block, we almost lost a city and another thing my father went to help deliver relief during that time, and he was fired upon by citizens not cops.
This is why I moved away from Florida. I asked a bike cop what he thought would help with crime.
"Bring back the fleeing felon law" he said.
jebus.
posted by clavdivs at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2013
I'm not getting this correlation, that philly mess was 25 plus years ago. A better example may be detroit circa 1967. Alot of police sought to quell uprisings during that time as did many civil rights leaders. You lost a block, we almost lost a city and another thing my father went to help deliver relief during that time, and he was fired upon by citizens not cops.
This is why I moved away from Florida. I asked a bike cop what he thought would help with crime.
"Bring back the fleeing felon law" he said.
jebus.
posted by clavdivs at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2013
If you imagine yourself in Trayvon Martin's shoes, then what this case means is that someone can follow you without any reason, instigate a fight with you, shoot you dead, and face no consequences. Picturing that happening to you, or to someone you love, is sickening and terrifying. Regardless of what the law may have said it, you know it is an injustice.
But if your empathy gravitates towards the perpetrator, then you will imagine yourself in a situation in which you shoot someone in what -you consider- to be self-defense and Zimmerman's acquittal will seem reasonable to you. Perhaps you imagine yourself getting swept away by fear and adrenaline and shooting Trayvon by mistake...but an understandable one. If you naturally empathize with Zimmerman, you will never get to the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt'... because you will give him the benefit of the doubt over and over again. That is what we do for people we empathize with; that is what we do for ourselves.
People like me, whose imagination goes immediately to Trayvon, tend to be very open about this empathetic response. I've seen tons of posts on Facebook and Twitter, "That could have been me," "That could have been my son/cousin/best friend." You see less of that on the other side, but I believe it comes from the same place: a certain type of person looks at Zimmerman and thinks, "That could have been me." And then when the verdict comes down, they're ready to wrap it up in abstractions and say, "Yes, it might not have been pretty, but it was justice."
It's the pragmatists, right, who say that we decide how we feel first, and then construct a ladder of reason that will bring us to that conclusion? I've never felt that more strongly than listening to the two different sides of this case talk past each other. I know that the result of this case was unjust; I can reason it out, but I also feel it, deep in my gut. That said, I don't think any of my logical arguments will hold much sway with someone who, when they first heard this story, imagined themselves sitting in a courtroom accused of the shooting, instead of bleeding to death on the ground.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [50 favorites]
But if your empathy gravitates towards the perpetrator, then you will imagine yourself in a situation in which you shoot someone in what -you consider- to be self-defense and Zimmerman's acquittal will seem reasonable to you. Perhaps you imagine yourself getting swept away by fear and adrenaline and shooting Trayvon by mistake...but an understandable one. If you naturally empathize with Zimmerman, you will never get to the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt'... because you will give him the benefit of the doubt over and over again. That is what we do for people we empathize with; that is what we do for ourselves.
People like me, whose imagination goes immediately to Trayvon, tend to be very open about this empathetic response. I've seen tons of posts on Facebook and Twitter, "That could have been me," "That could have been my son/cousin/best friend." You see less of that on the other side, but I believe it comes from the same place: a certain type of person looks at Zimmerman and thinks, "That could have been me." And then when the verdict comes down, they're ready to wrap it up in abstractions and say, "Yes, it might not have been pretty, but it was justice."
It's the pragmatists, right, who say that we decide how we feel first, and then construct a ladder of reason that will bring us to that conclusion? I've never felt that more strongly than listening to the two different sides of this case talk past each other. I know that the result of this case was unjust; I can reason it out, but I also feel it, deep in my gut. That said, I don't think any of my logical arguments will hold much sway with someone who, when they first heard this story, imagined themselves sitting in a courtroom accused of the shooting, instead of bleeding to death on the ground.
posted by pretentious illiterate at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [50 favorites]
Reading the hell out of this today, from A Letter to My Nephew, by James Baldwin (1962):
"You don't be afraid. I said it was intended that you should perish, in the ghetto, perish by never being allowed to go beyond and behind the white man's definition, by never being allowed to spell your proper name. You have, and many of us have, defeated this intention and by a terrible law, a terrible paradox, those innocents who believed that your imprisonment made them safe are losing their grasp of reality. But these men are your brothers, your lost younger brothers, and if the word "integration" means anything, this is what it means, that we with love shall force our brothers to see themselves as they are, to cease fleeing from reality and begin to change it, for this is your home, my friend. Do not be driven from it. Great men have done great things here and will again and we can make America what America must become."
(via jay smooth)
posted by mellophone at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
"You don't be afraid. I said it was intended that you should perish, in the ghetto, perish by never being allowed to go beyond and behind the white man's definition, by never being allowed to spell your proper name. You have, and many of us have, defeated this intention and by a terrible law, a terrible paradox, those innocents who believed that your imprisonment made them safe are losing their grasp of reality. But these men are your brothers, your lost younger brothers, and if the word "integration" means anything, this is what it means, that we with love shall force our brothers to see themselves as they are, to cease fleeing from reality and begin to change it, for this is your home, my friend. Do not be driven from it. Great men have done great things here and will again and we can make America what America must become."
(via jay smooth)
posted by mellophone at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Only took 6 non-black jurors to imagine themselves scared just absolutely to death by a scrawny black teenager with a bag of skittles. Funny that.
All you need to do is run the thought experiment where Trayvon wins the fight and gets anything less than a 10 to 20 spot. Let alone Trayvon armed and in pursuit of a suspicious white (Hispanic) dude in his all black neighborhood, wherever that's supposed to be?
My point above about race was that there is a discourse out there saying race isn't a factor in this episode because both parties are "not white" or "minority" identified. False equivalence extraordinaire. Them's weasel words. The law in the south especially and nationally in broad terms has always (since before the nation existed) had a special place for uppity young black men, and evidently it is still six feet underground if not locked up in a warehouse.
We all know it's true. The only question is how much denial one wishes to be in.
posted by spitbull at 2:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
All you need to do is run the thought experiment where Trayvon wins the fight and gets anything less than a 10 to 20 spot. Let alone Trayvon armed and in pursuit of a suspicious white (Hispanic) dude in his all black neighborhood, wherever that's supposed to be?
My point above about race was that there is a discourse out there saying race isn't a factor in this episode because both parties are "not white" or "minority" identified. False equivalence extraordinaire. Them's weasel words. The law in the south especially and nationally in broad terms has always (since before the nation existed) had a special place for uppity young black men, and evidently it is still six feet underground if not locked up in a warehouse.
We all know it's true. The only question is how much denial one wishes to be in.
posted by spitbull at 2:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Ross Gay, Some Thoughts On Mercy
I recently realized that I’ve never, as an adult, driven past a car that’s been pulled over without looking to see the race of its occupants. Part of every black child’s education includes learning how to deal with the police so he or she won’t be locked up or hurt or even killed. Despite my advanced degrees and my light-brown skin, I’ve had police take me out of my vehicle, threaten to bring in the dogs, and summon another two or three cars. But I’ve never been thrown facedown in the street or physically brutalized by the cops, as some of my black friends have. I’ve never been taken away for a few hours or days on account of “mistaken identity.” All in all, this traffic stop the other night amounted to nothing. It was so nothing, in fact — so everyday, so known, so agreed upon, so understood — that I am embarrassed, ashamed even, by the scale of my upset, by the way this nonevent took up residence in my body and wrung me out like a rag. I didn’t even get a ticket, after all. He just asked me some questions — questions I knew (we all knew, didn’t we?) he had before he pulled me over. We say, “Yeah, that’s just how it goes.” Given what could’ve happened, I ought to be glad, right? I ought to get over it.posted by dubusadus at 2:11 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
But it is also the familiarity of it all (black guy has unpleasant run-in with the cops) that makes my experience, and the many thousands like it, almost invisible — which makes the significant daily terror of being a black or brown person in this country almost invisible.
2uo: His only offense was defending himself
Proof of imminent attack? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
with non-lethal force
Proof? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
You see, the situation in court is inherently asymmetric. Nobody cares about "probable", only about "beyond reasonable doubt".
I don't think the prosecution proved it's case on Murder Two. However, everything single thing you argue could be true and it would be textbook manslaughter. The jury was distracted by the defense's racist aspersions on Martin's character. No one is calling for "mob justice" or "common sense" decisions, the jury failed to apply the law here. This has been all too common in the American South; both the context and facts are important here, and you seem only to repeat 101-level civics here that everyone already understands.
posted by spaltavian at 2:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Proof of imminent attack? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
with non-lethal force
Proof? Zimmerman claims otherwise, AFAIK.
You see, the situation in court is inherently asymmetric. Nobody cares about "probable", only about "beyond reasonable doubt".
I don't think the prosecution proved it's case on Murder Two. However, everything single thing you argue could be true and it would be textbook manslaughter. The jury was distracted by the defense's racist aspersions on Martin's character. No one is calling for "mob justice" or "common sense" decisions, the jury failed to apply the law here. This has been all too common in the American South; both the context and facts are important here, and you seem only to repeat 101-level civics here that everyone already understands.
posted by spaltavian at 2:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Attackers can now create situations where they are guarenteed to "win".
Like what?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 2:14 PM on July 14, 2013
Like what?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 2:14 PM on July 14, 2013
I realize that jury nullification is usually used by a jury to acquit, but everything I've read has said that it can be used the other way as well, to convict. My hypothetical was that one juror convinces all the others to convict, and that as long as they remain silent about it they can't get in trouble. Would the verdict stand if that were to happen, or would the judge vacate? And what would it mean for an appeal?
posted by Rhomboid at 2:16 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Rhomboid at 2:16 PM on July 14, 2013
spaltavian, the jury would have had to find that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense in order to convict him of manslaughter. Manslaughter precludes self-defense.
posted by snaparapans at 2:17 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 2:17 PM on July 14, 2013
"People like me, whose imagination goes immediately to Trayvon, tend to be very open about this empathetic response."
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help. I suppose I understand why people insist on inventing different versions of what happened based on what they want to believe, and that so many are inclined to do so is in itself evidence of serious problems in society and the justice system, but is fabrication of what is at best unknown really the way to go?
posted by cheburashka at 2:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help. I suppose I understand why people insist on inventing different versions of what happened based on what they want to believe, and that so many are inclined to do so is in itself evidence of serious problems in society and the justice system, but is fabrication of what is at best unknown really the way to go?
posted by cheburashka at 2:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I hope Angela Corey gets major sanctions for her handling of this case. She is everything that is wrong with the criminal justice system in this country; I hope people can recognize that no matter what side of this particular case they find themselves on.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
I suppose I understand why people insist on inventing different versions of what happened based on what they want to believe, and that so many are inclined to do so is in itself evidence of serious problems in society and the justice system, but is fabrication of what is at best unknown really the way to go?
but earlier
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help.
wut
posted by Benjy at 2:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
but earlier
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help.
wut
posted by Benjy at 2:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
What 2uo is consciously ignoring is the role the jury plays in evaluating credibility. In short, is the defense's narrative credible given the evidence the jury has in front of it? Now, the jury just happened to find the defense's narrative credible enough. But there's no particular reason why they couldn't have said, "well, the claims of the defense don't lead to a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt." Though the role of Florida's laws contribute, as well.
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who...
...was stalked, late at night, by a violent lunatic who was willing to kill.
posted by deanc at 2:27 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who...
...was stalked, late at night, by a violent lunatic who was willing to kill.
posted by deanc at 2:27 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish. It's an arbitrary collection of nations put together by Spanish imperialism and has nothing to do with skin color.
I think if there's one thing that is absolutely mindboggling to me, it is how some people who normally would be in favor of protecting POC rights to self-association and identification, are coming out because of this trial with anti-Hispanic/anti-Latino rhetoric.
No, you do not become a Latino/Hispanic based on "Speaking Spanish." Even going by a fairly mainstream definition, La Raza has some answers for you.
Can we get off this "Hispanics are totally made up" thing now?
posted by corb at 2:27 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think if there's one thing that is absolutely mindboggling to me, it is how some people who normally would be in favor of protecting POC rights to self-association and identification, are coming out because of this trial with anti-Hispanic/anti-Latino rhetoric.
No, you do not become a Latino/Hispanic based on "Speaking Spanish." Even going by a fairly mainstream definition, La Raza has some answers for you.
Can we get off this "Hispanics are totally made up" thing now?
posted by corb at 2:27 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Too many people are treating this like it were a sporting event where they have to root for "their side". (Primarily on the pro-Zimmerman side, yes.) Even if the prosecution failed to prove their case and the jury was correct in returning a not guilty verdict it isn't something to celebrate. Martin doesn't deserve to be dead.
posted by Justinian at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
snaparapans, 2uo was responding to someone saying Martin's only crime was self-defense, which 2uo cast doubt on. So, as I said, everything 2uo said above could be true and it would still be manslaughter, as 2uo was not saying Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
As for the merit of the claim, starting a fight and then losing it is not "self-defense" territory; and stand your ground only applies if you are not acting illegally to begin with. Zimmerman had already failed to obey the directions of the police.
posted by spaltavian at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
As for the merit of the claim, starting a fight and then losing it is not "self-defense" territory; and stand your ground only applies if you are not acting illegally to begin with. Zimmerman had already failed to obey the directions of the police.
posted by spaltavian at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Spaltavian: a 911 dispatcher is not the police and his or her suggestions have no legal force.
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The best available evidence indicates that this "beating and smashing for over a minute" or whatever DID NOT HAPPEN.
posted by windykites at 2:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by windykites at 2:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
Windykites is correct; even the defense was more or less conceding that Zimmerman likely overestimated the damage he was taking. They put on medical experts to testify that even relatively minor head trauma can seem much worse because you are being stunned.
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish.
I don't think this is true; I've seen people refer to Spaniards as "Hispanic" but that's like when an American media personality calls a black person from Canada an "African American".
Most Hispanic people have both Native American and White backgrounds; it's of course not a hard boundary but I don't think it's a generic term for people who have nothing to do with each other than being under Spanish rule 300 years ago.
posted by spaltavian at 2:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think this is true; I've seen people refer to Spaniards as "Hispanic" but that's like when an American media personality calls a black person from Canada an "African American".
Most Hispanic people have both Native American and White backgrounds; it's of course not a hard boundary but I don't think it's a generic term for people who have nothing to do with each other than being under Spanish rule 300 years ago.
posted by spaltavian at 2:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Even if the prosecution failed to prove their case and the jury was correct in returning a not guilty verdict it isn't something to celebrate. Martin doesn't deserve to be dead.
The problem is the human failure to draw a line between what is "legal" and what is "right." Ideally, we would be able to understand that something might be "technically" legal but still deserves condemnation on the part of the public. We have a lot of trouble with that concept, though, on both ends of it: some people might want Zimmerman's actions to be legal, so to justify his not being guilty, they have to elevate him to the status of hero. At the same time, because he was acquitted, they feel this is a demonstration of his being "in the right" and take offense to those that would condemn him and sympathize with Martin.
What this does is create a bunch of "heroes" whose only claim to fame is not running afoul of the laws, and a culture in which it is a more admirable virtue to be clever than to be good. So, yes, today is a victory for violent, clever people, which has a history in Florida.
posted by deanc at 2:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The problem is the human failure to draw a line between what is "legal" and what is "right." Ideally, we would be able to understand that something might be "technically" legal but still deserves condemnation on the part of the public. We have a lot of trouble with that concept, though, on both ends of it: some people might want Zimmerman's actions to be legal, so to justify his not being guilty, they have to elevate him to the status of hero. At the same time, because he was acquitted, they feel this is a demonstration of his being "in the right" and take offense to those that would condemn him and sympathize with Martin.
What this does is create a bunch of "heroes" whose only claim to fame is not running afoul of the laws, and a culture in which it is a more admirable virtue to be clever than to be good. So, yes, today is a victory for violent, clever people, which has a history in Florida.
posted by deanc at 2:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute
Take the Florida Challenge: Bash your head into concrete for 10 seconds and see if you have more injuries than Zimmerman. You will!
posted by spaltavian at 2:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
Take the Florida Challenge: Bash your head into concrete for 10 seconds and see if you have more injuries than Zimmerman. You will!
posted by spaltavian at 2:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Definition from the Pew Hispanic Center
posted by mochapickle at 2:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 2:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think if there's one thing that is absolutely mindboggling to me, it is how some people who normally would be in favor of protecting POC rights to self-association and identification, are coming out because of this trial with anti-Hispanic/anti-Latino rhetoric.
You don't have to use weasel words like "some people" when directly quoting my comments, corb. You may refer to me by name when you suggest that I, a person of South American origin, have "come out" as a person who is guilty of anti-Hispanic or anti-Latino rhetoric due to a nitpick over the etymology of an ethynonym.
posted by elizardbits at 2:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
You don't have to use weasel words like "some people" when directly quoting my comments, corb. You may refer to me by name when you suggest that I, a person of South American origin, have "come out" as a person who is guilty of anti-Hispanic or anti-Latino rhetoric due to a nitpick over the etymology of an ethynonym.
posted by elizardbits at 2:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [42 favorites]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute
Yeah, um, pretty sure that didn't happen.
posted by Artw at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Yeah, um, pretty sure that didn't happen.
posted by Artw at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
@cheburaska
You're proving my point, I think. That narrative seems insane to me. Why would a young boy - a boy I'm imagining having fears, thoughts, and motivations much like own - after going for a walk to buy snacks, turn on someone who was following him and suddenly begin smashing his head in? It seems much more likely that whatever paltry evidence supports this version of events is misleading, and if there was any 'head-bashing,' going on, then Martin -frightened, unarmed, and legally underage - was himself acting out of self-defense - which means that he ought not to have been killed for doing so.
You, on the other hand, seemed inclined to sympathize with Zimmerman, so you're ready to take a small amount of evidence, combined with that man's word, as enough evidence for a story that doesn't make much sense -from Martin's perspective - but would be justification for Zimmerman's actions.
I can imagine being in Zimmerman's shoes. I can imagine being scared, confused, and even regretful after having made an awful, awful mistake. That does not change my sense that he deserves to go to prison for what he did.
Can you truly say you can imagine what it would like to be Trayvon Martin - a teenager, walking home, confronted by an armed stranger at night, possibly fighting back - and say his killing was just? That if you had been in that situation, you would have behaved differently? That the man who shot and killed you ought to walk away?
posted by pretentious illiterate at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
You're proving my point, I think. That narrative seems insane to me. Why would a young boy - a boy I'm imagining having fears, thoughts, and motivations much like own - after going for a walk to buy snacks, turn on someone who was following him and suddenly begin smashing his head in? It seems much more likely that whatever paltry evidence supports this version of events is misleading, and if there was any 'head-bashing,' going on, then Martin -frightened, unarmed, and legally underage - was himself acting out of self-defense - which means that he ought not to have been killed for doing so.
You, on the other hand, seemed inclined to sympathize with Zimmerman, so you're ready to take a small amount of evidence, combined with that man's word, as enough evidence for a story that doesn't make much sense -from Martin's perspective - but would be justification for Zimmerman's actions.
I can imagine being in Zimmerman's shoes. I can imagine being scared, confused, and even regretful after having made an awful, awful mistake. That does not change my sense that he deserves to go to prison for what he did.
Can you truly say you can imagine what it would like to be Trayvon Martin - a teenager, walking home, confronted by an armed stranger at night, possibly fighting back - and say his killing was just? That if you had been in that situation, you would have behaved differently? That the man who shot and killed you ought to walk away?
posted by pretentious illiterate at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Sorry spaltavian, did not realize you were responding to a scenario where Martin was using self-defense and would have been convicted of manslaughter.. and you seem to have gotten different information on the evidence than the jury did.
posted by snaparapans at 2:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by snaparapans at 2:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help.
I imagine myself or my loved ones ambling home from the store with a bag of candy and a soda, being followed slowly in a car by a stranger (which is a thing that has actually happened to me - it is more menacing than you can imagine until it happens to you). And it's dark, and it's raining, and the guy gets out of his car after following me quite a way when all I want to do is to go home and eat some skittles.
Pretty much everything we've heard after that comes from the freak who was stalking a teenager through the dark and the rain with a gun. A self-appointed 'community watch' person, who was told to stay in his car by 911 and who made all kinds of pointless calls to 911 about people in his area who happened to be Black.
And I think about what I (unfortunately quite extensively) know about wannabe cop fetishists, and I think about how scary it was when some creep followed me in my quiet little neighborhood, and pretty much nothing that a teenager in a panic could possibly do to the stalking freak can make me feel any sympathy for the person who deliberately courted the confrontation because he had a hardon for being some kind of pudgy suburban rent-a-cop.
posted by winna at 2:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [56 favorites]
I imagine myself or my loved ones ambling home from the store with a bag of candy and a soda, being followed slowly in a car by a stranger (which is a thing that has actually happened to me - it is more menacing than you can imagine until it happens to you). And it's dark, and it's raining, and the guy gets out of his car after following me quite a way when all I want to do is to go home and eat some skittles.
Pretty much everything we've heard after that comes from the freak who was stalking a teenager through the dark and the rain with a gun. A self-appointed 'community watch' person, who was told to stay in his car by 911 and who made all kinds of pointless calls to 911 about people in his area who happened to be Black.
And I think about what I (unfortunately quite extensively) know about wannabe cop fetishists, and I think about how scary it was when some creep followed me in my quiet little neighborhood, and pretty much nothing that a teenager in a panic could possibly do to the stalking freak can make me feel any sympathy for the person who deliberately courted the confrontation because he had a hardon for being some kind of pudgy suburban rent-a-cop.
posted by winna at 2:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [56 favorites]
‘Kill pigs’ riot erupts in Oakland in response to Zimmerman verdict; no arrests.
A BART police car parked outside the 12th Street BART Station had its windows smashed, and protesters spray-painted "F- the police" and "Kill Pigs" on the side of the vehicle.posted by corb at 2:56 PM on July 14, 2013
About 11:30 p.m., Oakland police formed a skirmish line near their headquarters at 7th Street and Broadway and came face-to-face with protesters.
As Argus, the police helicopter, monitored from above, the crowd soon moved away from the intersection and headed east on 14th Street, stopping at a McDonald's restaurant shortly after midnight to burn several flags and to spray-paint "Kill Zimmerman" and "FTP," an anti-police epithet, on the side of Alameda County's Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Part of it, I think, is the fact that we, as Americans especially, don't like the idea of feeling like we are powerless in the face of awful people who abuse their rights and still stay within the law. So we have to elevate the status of such people to the level of heroic or virtuous. That's why we get stories like this and this where bad behavior on the part of employers was excused with, "well, it's legal, so the decisionmakers are doing a good job, and if anyone doesn't like it, it's their fault and they should learn to deal with it rather than criticizing law abiding [rich] citizens." Well now, we have that same mentality playing out, and our affection for the "clever" non-criminal means that someone is dead, and we're here saying, "well, we shouldn't criticize, and we should just learn to accept it." But the person who was the target of this law-abiding person can't accept it because he is dead.
posted by deanc at 2:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by deanc at 2:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And I think about what I (unfortunately quite extensively) know about wannabe cop fetishists, and I think about how scary it was when some creep followed me in my quiet little neighborhood, and pretty much nothing that a teenager in a panic could possibly do to the stalking freak can make me feel any sympathy for the person who deliberately courted the confrontation because he had a hardon for being some kind of pudgy suburban rent-a-cop.
That is, I would not feel any sympathy for him if I believed a single solitary word of his fantastic story, which I do not.
posted by winna at 2:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
That is, I would not feel any sympathy for him if I believed a single solitary word of his fantastic story, which I do not.
posted by winna at 2:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm a little surprised Zimmerman is only 28. From the ass kicking he was apparently getting from this kid I expected him to be in his 50s or something.
I got ten years on Zimmerman and I am pretty confident I could fight one guy and get away without having to shoot him. Then again. I don't have special training or whatever gun toting law fetishists go though.
posted by Ad hominem at 2:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I got ten years on Zimmerman and I am pretty confident I could fight one guy and get away without having to shoot him. Then again. I don't have special training or whatever gun toting law fetishists go though.
posted by Ad hominem at 2:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
I don't have special training or whatever gun toting law fetishists go though.
They play Call of Duty a lot and watch MMA fights on the couch. It's totally special training unavailable to civilians.
posted by winna at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
They play Call of Duty a lot and watch MMA fights on the couch. It's totally special training unavailable to civilians.
posted by winna at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Maybe to get a CCL, people should have to learn how defend themselves without shooting someone.
BTW, I'm saying the whole scenario that a 17 tear old randomly jumped a 28 year old guy, who was a law enforcement groupie yet apparently had no idea how to fight anyone off or apply any non-lethal force whatsoever, and pounded his head into the ground for a minute, yet the guy could still pull a gun and shoot Trayvon is not very believable to me.
posted by Ad hominem at 3:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
BTW, I'm saying the whole scenario that a 17 tear old randomly jumped a 28 year old guy, who was a law enforcement groupie yet apparently had no idea how to fight anyone off or apply any non-lethal force whatsoever, and pounded his head into the ground for a minute, yet the guy could still pull a gun and shoot Trayvon is not very believable to me.
posted by Ad hominem at 3:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
George Zimmerman’s crude Myspace page from 2005
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book,” the 2005 Myspace page said. “Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”Latino Racism = US Racism + Latin American Racism
Another line suggested his friends went to jail and did not rat him out. “They do a year and dont ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched.”
The pictures posted on the page including several with an ethnically diverse group of friends. The blog section boasts about having two felonies knocked down to misdemeanors and describes a court battle with an ex-girlfriend. Zimmerman faced two felonies in 2005 for obstructing justice and battery on a law enforcement officer, but the cases were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery, and he was left with no criminal conviction on his record.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
To be honest, I am glad that there haven't been more violent protests than some spray paint and broken windows. The protests locally have been heartfelt vigils with prayers and candles and, as noted above, thankfully no arrests of the protestors themselves.
posted by jetlagaddict at 3:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by jetlagaddict at 3:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
You're not getting it, Justinian. Some of us are not playing teams but are genuinely horrified by this outcome as parents and human beings (and as people who got targeted for this kind of harrassment as teenagers ourselves and realize now how easy it is to end up dead and written off as scum by the public and the courts).
posted by saulgoodman at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 3:11 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
The "‘Kill pigs’ riot erupts" link is to a site that looks like Free Republic with a thin veneer of "Biz News".
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
"Can you truly say you can imagine what it would like to be Trayvon Martin - a teenager, walking home, confronted by an armed stranger at night, possibly fighting back - and say his killing was just?"
I can imagine that Trayvon Martin stayed in the area instead of running home or running far away for some reason other than to attack George Zimmerman. I can imagine that when the two saw each other again, George Zimmerman tried to restrain Trayvon Martin either physically or at gun point. I can imagine that Trayvon Martin became aware that Zimmerman was armed, and that this would justify beating someone who was screaming for help for almost if not more than a minute (I suppose one might believe it was Trayvon Martin who was screaming on that 911 call, in which case the whole narrative changes, but based on the trial I just don't believe this). I can imagine that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were wrestling for the gun while George Zimmerman was also screaming for help. But, based on what I've seen of the trial, to me the most plausible version is that a kid who enjoyed street fighting decided to teach some creepy racist a lesson, but the creepy racist happened to have a gun and after getting handily beaten for a while used it. In the end, regardless of which version one might believe, based on the law as it exists this particular trial was a farce and acquittal the only proper verdict in this particular case. I would note that I'm reasonably certain that the principles and burdens of self-defense that were at issue in this case are the same in all states except one. As for the rest, anyone is free to use this case as springboard for whatever they see fit.
posted by cheburashka at 3:13 PM on July 14, 2013
I can imagine that Trayvon Martin stayed in the area instead of running home or running far away for some reason other than to attack George Zimmerman. I can imagine that when the two saw each other again, George Zimmerman tried to restrain Trayvon Martin either physically or at gun point. I can imagine that Trayvon Martin became aware that Zimmerman was armed, and that this would justify beating someone who was screaming for help for almost if not more than a minute (I suppose one might believe it was Trayvon Martin who was screaming on that 911 call, in which case the whole narrative changes, but based on the trial I just don't believe this). I can imagine that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were wrestling for the gun while George Zimmerman was also screaming for help. But, based on what I've seen of the trial, to me the most plausible version is that a kid who enjoyed street fighting decided to teach some creepy racist a lesson, but the creepy racist happened to have a gun and after getting handily beaten for a while used it. In the end, regardless of which version one might believe, based on the law as it exists this particular trial was a farce and acquittal the only proper verdict in this particular case. I would note that I'm reasonably certain that the principles and burdens of self-defense that were at issue in this case are the same in all states except one. As for the rest, anyone is free to use this case as springboard for whatever they see fit.
posted by cheburashka at 3:13 PM on July 14, 2013
I can imagine that Trayvon Martin stayed in the area instead of running home or running far away for some reason other than to attack George Zimmerman because that's what black kids do.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
You've obviously never been pursued by someone for harrassment because they didn't like how you looked as a teenager. A grown man should have known better. Zimmerman's recklessly negligent actions directly led to a young man's death when it would otherwise not have happened at all. That's why this is a miscarriage of justice, whether the legal points were all plausibly observed or not.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:18 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 3:18 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Both sides got to prepare and present their case fairly. The jury listened to the evidence and were unanimous in finding Zimmerman innocent. Have some respect for the citizens who gave up their time to sit on the jury and make a hard decision based on the evidence presented.
posted by w0mbat at 3:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by w0mbat at 3:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Have some respect for the citizens who gave up their time to sit on the jury and make a hard decision based on the evidence presented.
Nobody said they don't have respect for the jurors. Whether or not they did a good job is a completely different story.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Nobody said they don't have respect for the jurors. Whether or not they did a good job is a completely different story.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
You're not getting it, Justinian. Some of us are not playing teams but are genuinely horrified by this outcome as parents and human beings
Did you miss the part where I specifically said this was primarily an issue on the pro-Zimmerman side? Or what?
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on July 14, 2013
Did you miss the part where I specifically said this was primarily an issue on the pro-Zimmerman side? Or what?
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on July 14, 2013
Nobody said they don't have respect for the jurors.
Sure they did, but I don't think anyone should hold you accountable for the entire thread.
posted by phaedon at 3:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sure they did, but I don't think anyone should hold you accountable for the entire thread.
posted by phaedon at 3:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Man... Thats the lamest riot on recod. A little flag burning and some angry grafitti? Why are't the cops in there with the assult rifles yet?
posted by edgeways at 3:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by edgeways at 3:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, apparently federal prosecutors are looking into trying him yet again. Maybe someone can explain how it's not double jeopardy?
posted by corb at 3:32 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by corb at 3:32 PM on July 14, 2013
corb, I'm sure they'll be trying him on Civil Rights violation charges.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:34 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:34 PM on July 14, 2013
Yeah, you can be tried in a civil court after a criminal for the same incident.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right, I'm not asking to be snarky - I really do not understand how that would be legal. What kind of civil rights violations would not be substantially similar to the murder or manslaughter charges?
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by corb at 3:36 PM on July 14, 2013
What kind of civil rights violations would not be substantially similar to the murder or manslaughter charges?
Depriving him of his life or liberty because of the color of his skin.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Depriving him of his life or liberty because of the color of his skin.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Perhaps under the "separate sovereigns" doctrine.
posted by rustcellar at 3:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rustcellar at 3:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
cheburashka I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help.
I think the difference between us is that I don't think the "best available evidence" indicates anything of the sort. That's George Zimmerman's story, and that you choose to take it at face value and believe it uncritically, despite the undisputed facts surrounding the event says a lot about you.
Here are the undisputed facts:
1) George Zimmerman chose to arm himself and cruise around in an SUV pretending he was a cop and looking for "suspicious people", by which he pretty much meant "black people".
2) Finding Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman followed him in his SUV while calling 911 and using aggressive language to describe Martin as a criminal, "fucking punk". there's also the racist aspect of "they always get away with it", where "they" pretty much has to mean black people.
3) After following Martin for several minutes in his SUV, Zimmerman chose to leave his vehicle.
That does not point to a peaceful man who was thoughtful and non-violent.
After that we enter the realm of the disputed, and there you have chosen to empathize with Zimmerman, the man who instigated the whole event, and take his version of events as the truth.
I empathize more with Martin. He's 17, he's been subject to racist BS his whole life (my six year old has already been called "a fucking nigger" by one of his friends, yes really). He's committed no crime and has simply walked out to buy some snacks and is on his way home, proceeding as the police would say about his lawful occasions.
Out of nowhere a creepy older guy starts following him, he's scared. We have here only his word, but when he called his friend he said he was nervous, frightened, and worried, I think that seems entirely reasonable given the circumstances and see no reason to doubt that.
You wish to then imagine that Zimmerman, peaceful and non-violent, left his car for no reason but to look at a street sign and out of nowhere and completely unprovoked Martin attacked him and fearing for his life Zimmerman, regretfully, shot him.
This seems a completely unbelievable sequence of events to me. It doesn't mesh with the undisputed facts, which clearly establish Zimmerman as the aggressor and instigator of the events.
So I empathize with Martin. He looks like my kid, and I know the shit my kid has gone through already. I see no reason at all to believe that Martin randomly jumped Zimmerman and started assaulting him.
I don't empathize with a person who was "beating and smashing a person's head into the concrete while that person was screaming for help". I empathize with a scared kid who was stalked and likely attacked by a guy acting out a Rambo fantasy.
posted by sotonohito at 3:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [80 favorites]
I think the difference between us is that I don't think the "best available evidence" indicates anything of the sort. That's George Zimmerman's story, and that you choose to take it at face value and believe it uncritically, despite the undisputed facts surrounding the event says a lot about you.
Here are the undisputed facts:
1) George Zimmerman chose to arm himself and cruise around in an SUV pretending he was a cop and looking for "suspicious people", by which he pretty much meant "black people".
2) Finding Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman followed him in his SUV while calling 911 and using aggressive language to describe Martin as a criminal, "fucking punk". there's also the racist aspect of "they always get away with it", where "they" pretty much has to mean black people.
3) After following Martin for several minutes in his SUV, Zimmerman chose to leave his vehicle.
That does not point to a peaceful man who was thoughtful and non-violent.
After that we enter the realm of the disputed, and there you have chosen to empathize with Zimmerman, the man who instigated the whole event, and take his version of events as the truth.
I empathize more with Martin. He's 17, he's been subject to racist BS his whole life (my six year old has already been called "a fucking nigger" by one of his friends, yes really). He's committed no crime and has simply walked out to buy some snacks and is on his way home, proceeding as the police would say about his lawful occasions.
Out of nowhere a creepy older guy starts following him, he's scared. We have here only his word, but when he called his friend he said he was nervous, frightened, and worried, I think that seems entirely reasonable given the circumstances and see no reason to doubt that.
You wish to then imagine that Zimmerman, peaceful and non-violent, left his car for no reason but to look at a street sign and out of nowhere and completely unprovoked Martin attacked him and fearing for his life Zimmerman, regretfully, shot him.
This seems a completely unbelievable sequence of events to me. It doesn't mesh with the undisputed facts, which clearly establish Zimmerman as the aggressor and instigator of the events.
So I empathize with Martin. He looks like my kid, and I know the shit my kid has gone through already. I see no reason at all to believe that Martin randomly jumped Zimmerman and started assaulting him.
I don't empathize with a person who was "beating and smashing a person's head into the concrete while that person was screaming for help". I empathize with a scared kid who was stalked and likely attacked by a guy acting out a Rambo fantasy.
posted by sotonohito at 3:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [80 favorites]
Both sides got to prepare and present their case fairly. The jury listened to the evidence and were unanimous in finding Zimmerman innocent. Have some respect for the citizens who gave up their time to sit on the jury and make a hard decision based on the evidence presented.
This is like saying you should never disagree with the President, because you should have respect for elections.
posted by spaltavian at 3:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
This is like saying you should never disagree with the President, because you should have respect for elections.
posted by spaltavian at 3:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Thanks rustcellar, but again - doesn't federal jurisdiction trump state jurisdiction? Thus, if there were a federal case, wouldn't it have gone first, rather than second?
Here are the undisputed facts
I think if there's one thing that is clear about this case, it's that there are no undisputed facts.
posted by corb at 3:40 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here are the undisputed facts
I think if there's one thing that is clear about this case, it's that there are no undisputed facts.
posted by corb at 3:40 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard (crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence or in some matters, clear and convincing evidence). Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident (though res judicata operates within the civil court system). For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal prosecution, but lost a civil wrongful death claim brought over the same victims." from your best friend, Wikipedia.
posted by artof.mulata at 3:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by artof.mulata at 3:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
And, ultimately, I empathize with the party who didn't start a potentially violent situation. If Zimmerman had chosen to stay home that evening, rather than pretending he was Rambo, nothing would have happened. Martin would have bought some candy and gone home, everything would be fine.
Zimmerman started the whole even, therefore he is 100% responsible for all that followed.
posted by sotonohito at 3:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
Zimmerman started the whole even, therefore he is 100% responsible for all that followed.
posted by sotonohito at 3:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
I must admit, it is surprising to me how many people seem to see themselves or their loved ones in the shoes of someone who, by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete for almost a minute while that person was screaming for help.
If you have to resort to the basest, most awful stereotypes of black men to get your point across, something really fucked up is going on.
I can imagine that Trayvon Martin stayed in the area instead of running home or running far away for some reason other than to attack George Zimmerman. I can imagine that when the two saw each other again, George Zimmerman tried to restrain Trayvon Martin either physically or at gun point. I can imagine that Trayvon Martin became aware that Zimmerman was armed, and that this would justify beating someone who was screaming for help for almost if not more than a minute (I suppose one might believe it was Trayvon Martin who was screaming on that 911 call, in which case the whole narrative changes, but based on the trial I just don't believe this). I can imagine that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were wrestling for the gun while George Zimmerman was also screaming for help.
You can imagine quite a lot, apparently based on bunch of ignorance and straight-up racist privilege bullshit.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:46 PM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
If you have to resort to the basest, most awful stereotypes of black men to get your point across, something really fucked up is going on.
I can imagine that Trayvon Martin stayed in the area instead of running home or running far away for some reason other than to attack George Zimmerman. I can imagine that when the two saw each other again, George Zimmerman tried to restrain Trayvon Martin either physically or at gun point. I can imagine that Trayvon Martin became aware that Zimmerman was armed, and that this would justify beating someone who was screaming for help for almost if not more than a minute (I suppose one might believe it was Trayvon Martin who was screaming on that 911 call, in which case the whole narrative changes, but based on the trial I just don't believe this). I can imagine that George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were wrestling for the gun while George Zimmerman was also screaming for help.
You can imagine quite a lot, apparently based on bunch of ignorance and straight-up racist privilege bullshit.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:46 PM on July 14, 2013 [16 favorites]
I think if there's one thing that is clear about this case, it's that there are no undisputed facts.
How about the fact that a kid is dead and some other dude was the one who shot him to death?
posted by lampshade at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
How about the fact that a kid is dead and some other dude was the one who shot him to death?
posted by lampshade at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [29 favorites]
Maybe someone can explain how it's not double jeopardy? I really do not understand how that would be legal.
In the case of federal charges, the use of federal civil rights laws has been used as a backstop to prosecute suspects in states that refused to charge or convict white murderers of blacks, particularly with respect to lynchings.
As a general matter in the USA, certain crimes have multi-jurisdictional implications. If you are acquitted of fraud in one state as part of a crime you committed over multiple states, then other states can prosecute you. The federal government may want a bite at you as well.
posted by deanc at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
In the case of federal charges, the use of federal civil rights laws has been used as a backstop to prosecute suspects in states that refused to charge or convict white murderers of blacks, particularly with respect to lynchings.
As a general matter in the USA, certain crimes have multi-jurisdictional implications. If you are acquitted of fraud in one state as part of a crime you committed over multiple states, then other states can prosecute you. The federal government may want a bite at you as well.
posted by deanc at 3:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
From Legal Dictionary, an explication of double jeopardy and the dual sovereignty doctrine:
The dual-sovereignty doctrine received national attention during the early 1990s, when two Los Angeles police officers were convicted in federal court for violating the Civil Rights of Rodney King during a brutal, videotaped beating, even though they previously had been acquitted in state court for excessive use of force (United States v. Koon, 833 F. Supp. 769 (C.D. Cal. 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994), rehearing denied 45 F.3d 1303). Although many observers believed that the officers had been tried twice for the same offense, the convictions were upheld on appeal over double jeopardy objections. Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the appellate court ruled, a defendant who violates the laws of two sovereigns, even if by a single act, has committed two distinct offenses, punishable by both authorities.
The dual-sovereignty doctrine is designed to vindicate the interest that each sovereign claims in promoting peace and dignity within its forum, and permits state and federal governments to prosecute someone for the same behavior after either has already done so. A defendant also may be prosecuted successively by two states for the same act or omission. In Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 106 S. Ct. 433, 88 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that successive prosecutions by the states of Georgia and Alabama based upon the same offense did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Heath, the defendant had committed murder in the state of Alabama but had taken the body to Georgia, where Georgia officials eventually found it. Both states prosecuted Heath and convicted him of murder for the same action, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the convictions to stand.
Some limitations apply to the dual-sovereignty doctrine. Successive prosecutions by a state and one of its political subdivisions (such as a county, city, or village) are not permitted, because these entities are deemed to be one sovereign. Moreover, federal and state authorities may not achieve a second prosecution by manipulating the criminal justice system, sometimes called a "sham prosecution." Although this exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine has been cited in several cases, it is seldom invoked.
The U.S. Department of Justice has developed an internal restriction on pursuing a prosecution after state prosecution has failed. Federal prosecutors under this restriction may only pursue a second prosecution for compelling reasons, and the prosecutor must obtain prior approval from the assistant attorney general prior to bringing the prosecution. This restriction is called the "Petite policy," named after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S. Ct. 45, 4 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1960), which involved the prosecution of an individual in two federal district courts for what amounted to the same offense. Although the Petite policy appears in the Department of Justice's manual, criminal defendants may not rely upon this restriction if a federal prosecutor fails to adhere to the department's guidelines.
posted by bakerina at 3:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The dual-sovereignty doctrine received national attention during the early 1990s, when two Los Angeles police officers were convicted in federal court for violating the Civil Rights of Rodney King during a brutal, videotaped beating, even though they previously had been acquitted in state court for excessive use of force (United States v. Koon, 833 F. Supp. 769 (C.D. Cal. 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994), rehearing denied 45 F.3d 1303). Although many observers believed that the officers had been tried twice for the same offense, the convictions were upheld on appeal over double jeopardy objections. Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the appellate court ruled, a defendant who violates the laws of two sovereigns, even if by a single act, has committed two distinct offenses, punishable by both authorities.
The dual-sovereignty doctrine is designed to vindicate the interest that each sovereign claims in promoting peace and dignity within its forum, and permits state and federal governments to prosecute someone for the same behavior after either has already done so. A defendant also may be prosecuted successively by two states for the same act or omission. In Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 106 S. Ct. 433, 88 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that successive prosecutions by the states of Georgia and Alabama based upon the same offense did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Heath, the defendant had committed murder in the state of Alabama but had taken the body to Georgia, where Georgia officials eventually found it. Both states prosecuted Heath and convicted him of murder for the same action, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the convictions to stand.
Some limitations apply to the dual-sovereignty doctrine. Successive prosecutions by a state and one of its political subdivisions (such as a county, city, or village) are not permitted, because these entities are deemed to be one sovereign. Moreover, federal and state authorities may not achieve a second prosecution by manipulating the criminal justice system, sometimes called a "sham prosecution." Although this exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine has been cited in several cases, it is seldom invoked.
The U.S. Department of Justice has developed an internal restriction on pursuing a prosecution after state prosecution has failed. Federal prosecutors under this restriction may only pursue a second prosecution for compelling reasons, and the prosecutor must obtain prior approval from the assistant attorney general prior to bringing the prosecution. This restriction is called the "Petite policy," named after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 80 S. Ct. 45, 4 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1960), which involved the prosecution of an individual in two federal district courts for what amounted to the same offense. Although the Petite policy appears in the Department of Justice's manual, criminal defendants may not rely upon this restriction if a federal prosecutor fails to adhere to the department's guidelines.
posted by bakerina at 3:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yeah, all I keep coming back to is that if it is legal to stalk and kill a 17-year-old boy, then the law is wrong and must change. I hope there are civil rights charges brought, and I hope there are civil suits brought, and I hope the law gets changed before another family loses their son.
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [28 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [28 favorites]
I would be surprised if the feds get involved with this case. A civil suit on the other hand is completely assured. Not that they'd ever be able to collect anything.
posted by Justinian at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Justinian at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013
Well there are a handfull of undisputed facts: Zimmerman followed Martin, both in a vehicle and on foot. Zimmerman had a gun that was used to kill Martin, Zimmerman ignored police instruction to not get out of his vehicle and follow on foot. Zimmerman also made a 911 call that was pretty charged.
Then there is background and a bunch of conflicting evidence/testimony.
I will say, removing these events and just looking at personal history Martin seems like a much more together person who had a hell of a lot of potential. Zimmerman, well not so much.
But American justice is not really about finding the truth at all costs, it's about wrangling fine points to win, or to beat the system.
posted by edgeways at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Then there is background and a bunch of conflicting evidence/testimony.
I will say, removing these events and just looking at personal history Martin seems like a much more together person who had a hell of a lot of potential. Zimmerman, well not so much.
But American justice is not really about finding the truth at all costs, it's about wrangling fine points to win, or to beat the system.
posted by edgeways at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Thanks rustcellar, but again - doesn't federal jurisdiction trump state jurisdiction? Thus, if there were a federal case, wouldn't it have gone first, rather than second?
I'm not aware of any, and I can't think of any reason why that would be true. The whole idea of the separate sovereigns doctrine, as I understand it, is that the state(s) and the federal government can decide independently how to prosecute a crime that falls within their respective jurisdictions. I would be very surprised if a state could preclude federal prosecution by getting out in front of the DOJ.
posted by rustcellar at 3:51 PM on July 14, 2013
I'm not aware of any, and I can't think of any reason why that would be true. The whole idea of the separate sovereigns doctrine, as I understand it, is that the state(s) and the federal government can decide independently how to prosecute a crime that falls within their respective jurisdictions. I would be very surprised if a state could preclude federal prosecution by getting out in front of the DOJ.
posted by rustcellar at 3:51 PM on July 14, 2013
Zimmerman ignored police instruction to not get out of his vehicle and follow on foot
FWIW there was no police instruction not to get out of his vehicle. 911 dispatchers are not cops.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
FWIW there was no police instruction not to get out of his vehicle. 911 dispatchers are not cops.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
by the best available evidence, was beating and smashing a person's head into concrete
The best available evidence being the word of the guy who lived. Zimmerman didn't even have a concussion.
I see myself in Martin's shoes because I am often walking by myself, on my way to or from running an errand. Just today, I walked a round trip of eight blocks to get some coffee and donuts.
I have never armed myself and deliberately followed a "suspicious" person.
One time, someone was kicking in an upper floor window from the fire escape in the building next door. I called 911 and then stayed inside my damn house until I saw the squad cars.
posted by rtha at 3:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
The best available evidence being the word of the guy who lived. Zimmerman didn't even have a concussion.
I see myself in Martin's shoes because I am often walking by myself, on my way to or from running an errand. Just today, I walked a round trip of eight blocks to get some coffee and donuts.
I have never armed myself and deliberately followed a "suspicious" person.
One time, someone was kicking in an upper floor window from the fire escape in the building next door. I called 911 and then stayed inside my damn house until I saw the squad cars.
posted by rtha at 3:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
I don't know the facts, so I'll substitute what I assume must have happened based on my view of the world, and I don't know the law, so I'll substitute what I assume would be good laws. I'm outraged by this verdict.
posted by planet at 3:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by planet at 3:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
"FWIW there was no police instruction not to get out of his vehicle. 911 dispatchers are not cops."
Yes, but it does speak to Zimmerman's awareness of the wisdom of his actions and his intentions.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Yes, but it does speak to Zimmerman's awareness of the wisdom of his actions and his intentions.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Nobody said they don't have respect for the jurors. Whether or not they did a good job is a completely different story.
For example, one commenter in this thread remarked:
Only took 6 non-black jurors to imagine themselves scared just absolutely to death by a scrawny black teenager with a bag of skittles. Funny that.
This is about as uncivil an armchair remark as one can possibly make. I'm not even going to directly involve myself with the level of stupidity it takes to make this kind of comment, so let's just refer to it as the "Zimmerman treatment" - one look at a person's skin color and you know what they're up to. I hope this doesn't pass for critical thinking in this day and age.
I feel that the unfortunate inception of the events that led up to Trayvon's death - verdict aside - really invites this type of hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide. Because I don't think even I, as a dutiful contrarian, would argue that at its core, this whole thing started out as a white/Hispanic person assessing a black person as a threat based on a quick look, an assumption and fear and hate. And somebody brought a gun to the table. And for that alone, there should be repentance. And our legal system does not provide for that.
I am a big believer in institutional racism - the idea that no one agent in the system has to do anything racist, meanwhile the overall outcome is in fact inherently racist. What happened to Trayvon Martin is a culmination of social and legislative trends and psychological, interpersonal patterns that have been brewing in this country well before he was born. I just don't know what good it does to attack each other in this country anymore. This very question, ideally, should've been asked before Zimmerman was armed and sent out on patrol.
Can we stop hating each other long enough to mourn together, I wish some public figure would ask. I feel that people have begun to lose interest in the healing, that the situation is just too hopeless.
posted by phaedon at 3:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
For example, one commenter in this thread remarked:
Only took 6 non-black jurors to imagine themselves scared just absolutely to death by a scrawny black teenager with a bag of skittles. Funny that.
This is about as uncivil an armchair remark as one can possibly make. I'm not even going to directly involve myself with the level of stupidity it takes to make this kind of comment, so let's just refer to it as the "Zimmerman treatment" - one look at a person's skin color and you know what they're up to. I hope this doesn't pass for critical thinking in this day and age.
I feel that the unfortunate inception of the events that led up to Trayvon's death - verdict aside - really invites this type of hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide. Because I don't think even I, as a dutiful contrarian, would argue that at its core, this whole thing started out as a white/Hispanic person assessing a black person as a threat based on a quick look, an assumption and fear and hate. And somebody brought a gun to the table. And for that alone, there should be repentance. And our legal system does not provide for that.
I am a big believer in institutional racism - the idea that no one agent in the system has to do anything racist, meanwhile the overall outcome is in fact inherently racist. What happened to Trayvon Martin is a culmination of social and legislative trends and psychological, interpersonal patterns that have been brewing in this country well before he was born. I just don't know what good it does to attack each other in this country anymore. This very question, ideally, should've been asked before Zimmerman was armed and sent out on patrol.
Can we stop hating each other long enough to mourn together, I wish some public figure would ask. I feel that people have begun to lose interest in the healing, that the situation is just too hopeless.
posted by phaedon at 3:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Fine, let's just take a trick from the press and call the 911 operators "authorities." Either way, he was advised by a representative of the state to knock it off but ignored it. That's evidence right there he was not exercising reasonable restraint when he went after Martin.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 3:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
Oh, sure, it's just important to get the facts correct.
posted by Justinian at 3:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hard to see how DOJ successfully prosecutes a civil rights case given this FBI report from July.
George Zimmerman a 'busybody' but not racist, FBI report concludes
posted by BobbyVan at 4:02 PM on July 14, 2013
George Zimmerman a 'busybody' but not racist, FBI report concludes
posted by BobbyVan at 4:02 PM on July 14, 2013
I think if there's one thing that is clear about this case, it's that there are no undisputed facts.
Actually, I think an undisputed fact is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and killed him.
posted by billiebee at 4:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Actually, I think an undisputed fact is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and killed him.
posted by billiebee at 4:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Note to self : commit crimes in Florida, where the prosecutors could fail to convict a ham sandwich for being delicious.
I didn't pay much attention to the trial while it was going on, but the more I read about it, the more I can't help but think they threw it on purpose. It's nearly as Keystone Kops as the OJ trial.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well there are a handfull of undisputed facts: Zimmerman followed Martin, both in a vehicle and on foot. Zimmerman had a gun that was used to kill Martin, Zimmerman ignored police instruction to not get out of his vehicle and follow on foot. Zimmerman also made a 911 call that was pretty charged.I also believe that it's an undisputed fact that Zimmerman believed that Martin was a fucking punk who was going to get away with it.
Whatever "it" is.
posted by Flunkie at 4:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
"FWIW there was no police instruction not to get out of his vehicle. 911 dispatchers are not cops."
Yes, but it does speak to Zimmerman's awareness of the wisdom of his actions and his intentions.
Yeah, that is an absurd nitpick.
posted by sweetkid at 4:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think it's pretty clear they didn't throw the case on purpose. They did the best they could without a lot of physical evidence or witnesses, Pogo. Unfortunately the majority of their closing argument was not good which probably hurt them considerably. But it was not good because the prosecutor was letting his emotion show through too much (constantly yelling, etc) not because he didn't care.
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on July 14, 2013
George Zimmerman a 'busybody' but not racist, FBI report concludes
They interviewed his "friends, colleagues and family members", though. It doesn't really seem like a group of people who, when faced with an FBI investigation into the nature of someone they care about, would make wholly unbiased statements. Furthermore, I think it is often reasonable to assume that in general many of one's friends and family (although perhaps not colleagues) might share the same social viewpoints on what is and is not considered racist.
posted by elizardbits at 4:11 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
They interviewed his "friends, colleagues and family members", though. It doesn't really seem like a group of people who, when faced with an FBI investigation into the nature of someone they care about, would make wholly unbiased statements. Furthermore, I think it is often reasonable to assume that in general many of one's friends and family (although perhaps not colleagues) might share the same social viewpoints on what is and is not considered racist.
posted by elizardbits at 4:11 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
BobbyVan, that link is broken.
In terms of the advice from the dispatcher - I'm not sure it was clear that that /was/ an instruction from the authorities.
In many ways, I'd consider myself about as weirdly authority-obeying as any person who thinks the state is a bad idea can be. Military experience. If I hear an order from a person in a position of authority, I tend to follow it. Call it a moral failing, if you will.
But if I heard a 911 dispatcher say "You don't need to do that" in such a situation, I would personally interpret it as the 911 dispatcher being concerned for my safety, not anything else, and certainly not that authorities would prefer I did not do it. I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood, and probably continued on my merry way.
But that willingness to accept personal risk does not nor should it extend to a willingness not to fight back if attacked.
posted by corb at 4:12 PM on July 14, 2013
In terms of the advice from the dispatcher - I'm not sure it was clear that that /was/ an instruction from the authorities.
In many ways, I'd consider myself about as weirdly authority-obeying as any person who thinks the state is a bad idea can be. Military experience. If I hear an order from a person in a position of authority, I tend to follow it. Call it a moral failing, if you will.
But if I heard a 911 dispatcher say "You don't need to do that" in such a situation, I would personally interpret it as the 911 dispatcher being concerned for my safety, not anything else, and certainly not that authorities would prefer I did not do it. I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood, and probably continued on my merry way.
But that willingness to accept personal risk does not nor should it extend to a willingness not to fight back if attacked.
posted by corb at 4:12 PM on July 14, 2013
I am a big believer in institutional racism - the idea that no one agent in the system has to do anything racist, meanwhile the overall outcome is in fact inherently racist. What happened to Trayvon Martin is a culmination of social and legislative trends and psychological, interpersonal patterns that have been brewing in this country well before he was born. I just don't know what good it does to attack each other in this country anymore. This very question, ideally, should've been asked before Zimmerman was armed and sent out on patrol.
But Zimmerman was not armed and sent on patrol. He armed himself and went out on "patrol". He was not representing any institution, except arguably Neighborhood Watch, who do not arm their representatives.
Institutional racism is absolutely a thing - qv the initial decision to release Zimmerman without charge. But individual racism is also a thing.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
But Zimmerman was not armed and sent on patrol. He armed himself and went out on "patrol". He was not representing any institution, except arguably Neighborhood Watch, who do not arm their representatives.
Institutional racism is absolutely a thing - qv the initial decision to release Zimmerman without charge. But individual racism is also a thing.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
George Zimmerman a 'busybody' but not racist, FBI report concludes
Not guilty of a crime, and thus practically an American hero! Like these guys who are also not-guilty of anything. Supposedly.
posted by deanc at 4:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not guilty of a crime, and thus practically an American hero! Like these guys who are also not-guilty of anything. Supposedly.
posted by deanc at 4:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I tried to avoid the actual trial stuff as much as possible so can't say much about the prosecutors' throwing this or not but Angela Corey's behavior in this clip is horrifying to me. I can't see how that could be acceptable to anyone, regardless of how you feel about the outcome. It is so inappropriate I can't even.
posted by sweetkid at 4:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 4:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Angela Corey cares about one thing, sweetkid: Angela Corey.
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
But individual racism is also a thing.
Right. I'm aware Zimmerman wasn't a member of the police force, and just so you know I didn't bring up the idea of "institutional" racism to give him a pass or anything. Point taken.
posted by phaedon at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013
Right. I'm aware Zimmerman wasn't a member of the police force, and just so you know I didn't bring up the idea of "institutional" racism to give him a pass or anything. Point taken.
posted by phaedon at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013
I feel that the unfortunate inception of the events that led up to Trayvon's death - verdict aside - really invites this type of hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide. Because I don't think even I, as a dutiful contrarian, would argue that at its core, this whole thing started out as a white/Hispanic person assessing a black person as a threat based on a quick look, an assumption and fear and hate. And somebody brought a gun to the table. And for that alone, there should be repentance. And our legal system does not provide for that.
I don't really buy the "hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide" line. Because it ignores who gets shot, who goes to jail, who gets to rent the apartment, and so on. I mean, yeah, there is hateful thinking on both sides. But the power is all on one side. And that's what people are mad about, dutiful contrarian.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
I don't really buy the "hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide" line. Because it ignores who gets shot, who goes to jail, who gets to rent the apartment, and so on. I mean, yeah, there is hateful thinking on both sides. But the power is all on one side. And that's what people are mad about, dutiful contrarian.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood, and probably continued on my merry way.
defending the neighborhood
From a kid carrying a bag of Skittles.
posted by Aizkolari at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
defending the neighborhood
From a kid carrying a bag of Skittles.
posted by Aizkolari at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
"Note to self : commit crimes in Florida, where the prosecutors could fail to convict a ham sandwich for being delicious."
That right there is a fine turn of an already-pithy phrase. Bravo!
"A prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." — Judge Solomon Wachtler
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
That right there is a fine turn of an already-pithy phrase. Bravo!
"A prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." — Judge Solomon Wachtler
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood
Except it seems the only person who bore personal risk because of Zimmerman "defending his neighbourhood" was a teenager, on his merry way home, who is now dead.
posted by billiebee at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Except it seems the only person who bore personal risk because of Zimmerman "defending his neighbourhood" was a teenager, on his merry way home, who is now dead.
posted by billiebee at 4:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
But if I heard a 911 dispatcher say "You don't need to do that" in such a situation, I would personally interpret it as the 911 dispatcher being concerned for my safety, not anything else, and certainly not that authorities would prefer I did not do it. I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood, and probably continued on my merry way.
FYI, the actual line was "OK, we don't need you to do that." It was said after he got out of the car to initiate pursuit, or in other words to take offensive action, not defensive.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
FYI, the actual line was "OK, we don't need you to do that." It was said after he got out of the car to initiate pursuit, or in other words to take offensive action, not defensive.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
From a kid carrying a bag of Skittles.
Well people have been trying to insinuate the skittles are part of a dastardly drug concoction. Possession of skittles is proof positive you are up to no good.
I'm not even kidding.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Well people have been trying to insinuate the skittles are part of a dastardly drug concoction. Possession of skittles is proof positive you are up to no good.
I'm not even kidding.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
And, as pointed out above, as admitted to by all parties including Zimmerman, there was no offensive action on Martin's part.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by zombieflanders at 4:22 PM on July 14, 2013
"If I saw a guy -- of any race -- following me in his car I'd be suspicious. If he stopped and got out to follow me on foot, I'd be down right terrified. If he got closer and closer, you can bet my fight or flight response would kick in."
I've been chased by a strange man before. He was following me in his car. When I cut through a yard to get away from him he got out and chased me. When he caught up, I took my backpack off and swung it at him, hitting him in the face. I pushed, kicked and hit him with my fists. When he backed off I ran again. He never swung at me, I hit him first.
Knowing that this guy could have shot me and got away with it makes me feel unsafe to leave the house. I realize it's unlikely that someone would get away with shooting me because I don't look "suspicious," I'm white and female, but it's still frightening.
I'm not going to agree that I should let strange men who are chasing me catch up so they can abduct, attack, or murder me just so they have a chance to explain why they are chasing me.
That teenager behaved exactly like he could be expected to behave in that situation. What are we suppose to tell black kids? Let creepy strangers attack you first then shoot them dead?
posted by feelingcold at 4:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [67 favorites]
I've been chased by a strange man before. He was following me in his car. When I cut through a yard to get away from him he got out and chased me. When he caught up, I took my backpack off and swung it at him, hitting him in the face. I pushed, kicked and hit him with my fists. When he backed off I ran again. He never swung at me, I hit him first.
Knowing that this guy could have shot me and got away with it makes me feel unsafe to leave the house. I realize it's unlikely that someone would get away with shooting me because I don't look "suspicious," I'm white and female, but it's still frightening.
I'm not going to agree that I should let strange men who are chasing me catch up so they can abduct, attack, or murder me just so they have a chance to explain why they are chasing me.
That teenager behaved exactly like he could be expected to behave in that situation. What are we suppose to tell black kids? Let creepy strangers attack you first then shoot them dead?
posted by feelingcold at 4:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [67 favorites]
‘Kill pigs’ riot erupts in Oakland in response to Zimmerman verdict; no arrests.
just to reiterate: the linked material is poisonous crap.
posted by angrycat at 4:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
just to reiterate: the linked material is poisonous crap.
posted by angrycat at 4:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
defending the neighborhood
from what, tooth decay?
posted by NoraReed at 4:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
from what, tooth decay?
posted by NoraReed at 4:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [22 favorites]
I mean, yeah, there is hateful thinking on both sides. But the power is all on one side. And that's what people are mad about, dutiful contrarian.
I totally understand your objection. That when I say "let's stop the hateful thinking" and "focus on the healing," I'm essentially quelling the angry mob and asking that we preserve the status quo. Point again taken.
Having said that, I'm not sure a guilty verdict would have fundamentally changed anything about the status quo either. Does the character of the country revolve around isolated incidents? I don't know, maybe it does.
posted by phaedon at 4:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I totally understand your objection. That when I say "let's stop the hateful thinking" and "focus on the healing," I'm essentially quelling the angry mob and asking that we preserve the status quo. Point again taken.
Having said that, I'm not sure a guilty verdict would have fundamentally changed anything about the status quo either. Does the character of the country revolve around isolated incidents? I don't know, maybe it does.
posted by phaedon at 4:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would have interpreted it as a warning meant for people who weren't willing to accept personal risk in defending the neighborhood, and probably continued on my merry way.
Oh my god this is the great divide. This explains the whole disagreement!
There are those who think that carrying a gun while cruising your little gated suburban neighborhood looking for 'suspicious characters' is 'accepting personal risk in defending the neighborhood' and those who think that it makes you one of the biggest losers in the history of the free world.
posted by winna at 4:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [59 favorites]
Oh my god this is the great divide. This explains the whole disagreement!
There are those who think that carrying a gun while cruising your little gated suburban neighborhood looking for 'suspicious characters' is 'accepting personal risk in defending the neighborhood' and those who think that it makes you one of the biggest losers in the history of the free world.
posted by winna at 4:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [59 favorites]
I feel that the unfortunate inception of the events that led up to Trayvon's death - verdict aside - really invites this type of hateful thinking on both sides of the racial divide.
Unless you have a moral belief against hatred in general, I'm pretty sure that it is acceptable to hate the person who stalked an unarmed teenager visiting his family and then went on to kill him. Zimmerman and his supporters sound like they feel the guy deserves a medal for "defending his neighborhood" and that anyone who would take issue with this is somehow "contributing to the problems on both sides" or something.
Normally, the people supporting Zimmerman can get away with praising a person who cleverly manipulates the law to his advantage to get himself rich or lord his dominance and power to abuse others in some way because we all like rich, dominant people, even if they're horrible human beings, because not-criminal == good ("he didn't break any laws!" is the excuse used for them). But this time the not-criminal guy has actually killed someone, and yet we're still hearing about how his technical lack of guilt in the eyes of the law somehow still makes him an admirable citizen worth admiring for his charm and pluck, like the CEO who manages to negotiate a huge compensation package while his employees get laid off. So I think a kind of moral rubicon has been crossed by the Zimmerman-defending faction, here, which has exposed a lot of ugliness on their part, where they can't take a moral stand or make a moral judgment where the actor involved has actually killed someone.
posted by deanc at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Unless you have a moral belief against hatred in general, I'm pretty sure that it is acceptable to hate the person who stalked an unarmed teenager visiting his family and then went on to kill him. Zimmerman and his supporters sound like they feel the guy deserves a medal for "defending his neighborhood" and that anyone who would take issue with this is somehow "contributing to the problems on both sides" or something.
Normally, the people supporting Zimmerman can get away with praising a person who cleverly manipulates the law to his advantage to get himself rich or lord his dominance and power to abuse others in some way because we all like rich, dominant people, even if they're horrible human beings, because not-criminal == good ("he didn't break any laws!" is the excuse used for them). But this time the not-criminal guy has actually killed someone, and yet we're still hearing about how his technical lack of guilt in the eyes of the law somehow still makes him an admirable citizen worth admiring for his charm and pluck, like the CEO who manages to negotiate a huge compensation package while his employees get laid off. So I think a kind of moral rubicon has been crossed by the Zimmerman-defending faction, here, which has exposed a lot of ugliness on their part, where they can't take a moral stand or make a moral judgment where the actor involved has actually killed someone.
posted by deanc at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Zimmerman Trial: African-American Intern Speaks Out (courtesy of The Root)
Also by way of The Root:
Trayvon's Stepmom: Zimmerman Didn't Profile Him Because He Was Black
posted by corb at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also by way of The Root:
Trayvon's Stepmom: Zimmerman Didn't Profile Him Because He Was Black
posted by corb at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm essentially quelling the angry mob
dang I am not seeing the angry mob it must be out there battling the people accepting personal risk in defending the neighborhood.
posted by winna at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
dang I am not seeing the angry mob it must be out there battling the people accepting personal risk in defending the neighborhood.
posted by winna at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
The problem is that this wasn't an isolated incident. It has happened many many times:
Here we go again: the Trayvon Martin verdict, and the white supremacist Groundhog Day that is American history
Here we go again: the Trayvon Martin verdict, and the white supremacist Groundhog Day that is American history
[W]hat I’m left with is a sense of impotent fury about the way our country perpetuates the seemingly endless cycle of officially sanctioned executions of people of color. In writing this, I’ve cast my mind back, and I remembered many names:posted by zombieflanders at 4:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [35 favorites]
Willie Turks, 1948-1982.
Michael Stewart, 1958-1983.
Eleanor Bumpurs, 1918-1984.
Michael Griffith, 1963-1986.
Yusuf Hawkins, 1973-1989.
James Byrd, Jr., 1949-1998.
Amadou Diallo, 1975-1999.
Patrick Dorismond, 1974-2000.
Ken Tillery, 1958-2002.
Sean Bell, 1983-2006.
Flint Farmer, 1981(?)-2011.
I could go on, and on, and on. But I will stop here.
I hardly need to point out that these killings did not take place in the deep, dark recesses of our pre-civil rights past. They all occurred within living memory, in the decades following the civil rights movement.
In the majority of the above cases, the people with blood on their hands never saw the inside of a prison cell. In some cases they never even stood trial.
When will it end? You tell me.
defending the neighborhood
Corb, you live in New York right? I really hope you don't have this attitude about the neighborhood you live in now.
This is how we get stuff like stop and frisk.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Corb, you live in New York right? I really hope you don't have this attitude about the neighborhood you live in now.
This is how we get stuff like stop and frisk.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The more I think about it, the more this fact blows my mind: there are people in this thread and all over this country who are utterly convinced that people who look like me -- and like my son will look in a little over a decade -- are capable of beating them to death with our bare hands at the slightest provocation.
Just let that sink in for a second.
How am I supposed to feel like this is a country where I can feel empowered to thrive when there is a non-trivial number of people who are so certain I am a critical threat to their property and safety that they must use weapons on me when I am completely unarmed?
I'll admit it, when I was a kid, I wanted to be a superhero. I wanted to be the super badass who could take on a squad of armed men with nothing more than my snappy banter and elite hand-to-hand skills and defeat them all. But I grew up on Silver Age comics, so my fantasies didn't include killing them, just leaving them neatly tied up with a note to the police from your friendly neighborhood lord_wolf.
I know that reality seldom lines up with the fantasies we have as children, but, Christ, I never would have dreamed that there would be this large a delta between those youthful imaginings and the way I am perceived by a frightening number of my fellow Americans.
I've said it before in threads that deal with race and social justice, and I'll say it again: Dr. King was right, this country is sick.
posted by lord_wolf at 4:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [64 favorites]
Just let that sink in for a second.
How am I supposed to feel like this is a country where I can feel empowered to thrive when there is a non-trivial number of people who are so certain I am a critical threat to their property and safety that they must use weapons on me when I am completely unarmed?
I'll admit it, when I was a kid, I wanted to be a superhero. I wanted to be the super badass who could take on a squad of armed men with nothing more than my snappy banter and elite hand-to-hand skills and defeat them all. But I grew up on Silver Age comics, so my fantasies didn't include killing them, just leaving them neatly tied up with a note to the police from your friendly neighborhood lord_wolf.
I know that reality seldom lines up with the fantasies we have as children, but, Christ, I never would have dreamed that there would be this large a delta between those youthful imaginings and the way I am perceived by a frightening number of my fellow Americans.
I've said it before in threads that deal with race and social justice, and I'll say it again: Dr. King was right, this country is sick.
posted by lord_wolf at 4:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [64 favorites]
Steel Pulse: "Put Your Hoodies On [4 Trayvon]"
And of course "No Justice, No Peace". (Lyricswow video, can't find the original track on YouTube)
posted by spitbull at 4:37 PM on July 14, 2013
And of course "No Justice, No Peace". (Lyricswow video, can't find the original track on YouTube)
posted by spitbull at 4:37 PM on July 14, 2013
George Zimmerman was not in any sense whatsoever providing any kind of "defense" for the neighborhood. Don't be ridiculous.
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
Corb, you live in New York right? I really hope you don't have this attitude about the neighborhood you live in now.
Why, because the police do such a good job of protecting neighborhoods full of people that look like me?
I don't go around armed, because, well, you can't in New York City - like many majority-minority cities, they have intensely strict gun control. (#protip: that wasn't aimed at white people) But you had better believe I keep an eye out in my neighborhood. Because the police won't.
posted by corb at 4:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Why, because the police do such a good job of protecting neighborhoods full of people that look like me?
I don't go around armed, because, well, you can't in New York City - like many majority-minority cities, they have intensely strict gun control. (#protip: that wasn't aimed at white people) But you had better believe I keep an eye out in my neighborhood. Because the police won't.
posted by corb at 4:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
corb, you are only correct if you are posting from NYC circa 1970-80s. I am not sure what is powering your version of law enforcement there.
posted by angrycat at 4:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 4:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
like many majority-minority cities, they have intensely strict gun control. (#protip: that wasn't aimed at white people)
Enough with this "gun control is for the real racists" crap you keep on slinging around. It's as timely and accurate as telling us that Republicans are the real civil rights heroes because Strom Thurmond and Friends were Democrats before the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Enough with this "gun control is for the real racists" crap you keep on slinging around. It's as timely and accurate as telling us that Republicans are the real civil rights heroes because Strom Thurmond and Friends were Democrats before the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Does the character of the country revolve around isolated incidents?
The story of race in America revolves around a whole horrible chain of incidents locked together one by one with no sign of it stopping. It's not so much this one case, I think, awful as it is, but the the sorry spectacle of yet another horrible miscarriage of justice. Because there are way too many people who have seen this happen to them and theirs over and over again. It's not the one incident, it's the weight of that fucking awful chain. And, yeah, one good verdict wouldn't have fixed the situation, but it would have cut back on that weight a little and given people time to breathe.
And here's the deal. Zimmerman looks like a guy who's also been screwed by different parts of the apparatus of the Patriarchy. And this is the great scheme -- we spend all our time looking at sad little losers who kill kids for no fucking reason, and we don't wee the guys behind the curtain who really benefit from this. And I don't mean there is some cackling conspiracy; it's a system that is well engineered to keep poor people hating on poor people and the less poor hating on the poor, so on up the chain.
And that "letting go of hate" is a problem, because it has to start on the side with some power, and they are not going to stop the hating because they are so scared of losing what little they have, especially now with the economy in the toilet and the guys who put it there counting their winnings and going unpunished in another example of injustice. And so, instead of class solidarity, we get racial divide. Oh, and dead kids. Yay, us.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
The story of race in America revolves around a whole horrible chain of incidents locked together one by one with no sign of it stopping. It's not so much this one case, I think, awful as it is, but the the sorry spectacle of yet another horrible miscarriage of justice. Because there are way too many people who have seen this happen to them and theirs over and over again. It's not the one incident, it's the weight of that fucking awful chain. And, yeah, one good verdict wouldn't have fixed the situation, but it would have cut back on that weight a little and given people time to breathe.
And here's the deal. Zimmerman looks like a guy who's also been screwed by different parts of the apparatus of the Patriarchy. And this is the great scheme -- we spend all our time looking at sad little losers who kill kids for no fucking reason, and we don't wee the guys behind the curtain who really benefit from this. And I don't mean there is some cackling conspiracy; it's a system that is well engineered to keep poor people hating on poor people and the less poor hating on the poor, so on up the chain.
And that "letting go of hate" is a problem, because it has to start on the side with some power, and they are not going to stop the hating because they are so scared of losing what little they have, especially now with the economy in the toilet and the guys who put it there counting their winnings and going unpunished in another example of injustice. And so, instead of class solidarity, we get racial divide. Oh, and dead kids. Yay, us.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Nobody said they don't have respect for the jurors. Whether or not they did a good job is a completely different story.
For example, one commenter in this thread remarked:
Only took 6 non-black jurors to imagine themselves scared just absolutely to death by a scrawny black teenager with a bag of skittles. Funny that.
This is about as uncivil an armchair remark as one can possibly make. I'm not even going to directly involve myself with the level of stupidity it takes to make this kind of comment, so let's just refer to it as the "Zimmerman treatment" - one look at a person's skin color and you know what they're up to. I hope this doesn't pass for critical thinking in this day and age.
I'm that stupid person, phaedron. But hey, ad hominem will get you noticed around here.
And I stand by my stupid remark absolutely, and wager my "critical thinking" faculties against yours all day long.
I was specifically responding, sarcastically, to a prior comment that excused the jury a bit for identifying more with Zimmerman's "fear" of black men than Trayvon's fear of armed non-black men. It's only stupid if you don't understand a finer point than you are granting me, which is how absurd the "poor jurors are to be excused somewhat or finding it credible that Immerman was scared of a kid with skittles who just happened to be a different color from anyone on the jury" excuse is.
posted by spitbull at 4:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
For example, one commenter in this thread remarked:
Only took 6 non-black jurors to imagine themselves scared just absolutely to death by a scrawny black teenager with a bag of skittles. Funny that.
This is about as uncivil an armchair remark as one can possibly make. I'm not even going to directly involve myself with the level of stupidity it takes to make this kind of comment, so let's just refer to it as the "Zimmerman treatment" - one look at a person's skin color and you know what they're up to. I hope this doesn't pass for critical thinking in this day and age.
I'm that stupid person, phaedron. But hey, ad hominem will get you noticed around here.
And I stand by my stupid remark absolutely, and wager my "critical thinking" faculties against yours all day long.
I was specifically responding, sarcastically, to a prior comment that excused the jury a bit for identifying more with Zimmerman's "fear" of black men than Trayvon's fear of armed non-black men. It's only stupid if you don't understand a finer point than you are granting me, which is how absurd the "poor jurors are to be excused somewhat or finding it credible that Immerman was scared of a kid with skittles who just happened to be a different color from anyone on the jury" excuse is.
posted by spitbull at 4:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Corb, I daresay there is not a single soul in this thread who has not heard your opinions about guns, your neighborhood, and self-policing before. Knock it off or it will be knocked for you.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [33 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [33 favorites]
Why, because the police do such a good job of protecting neighborhoods full of people that look like me?
I dunno. I don't want to make this about corb but the "defending my neghborhood" is a dangerous concept all around. From people calling the cops when they see a Puerto Rican to Joey Fama style racist pseudo-vigilantism to straight up gang fights in the park like I used to see as a kid.
I really don't want this to be about corb, because god knows corb isn't the only one that thinks this, but the attitude that Zimmerman is a hero holding the line against the creeping evil of black kids with skittles really disturbs me.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I dunno. I don't want to make this about corb but the "defending my neghborhood" is a dangerous concept all around. From people calling the cops when they see a Puerto Rican to Joey Fama style racist pseudo-vigilantism to straight up gang fights in the park like I used to see as a kid.
I really don't want this to be about corb, because god knows corb isn't the only one that thinks this, but the attitude that Zimmerman is a hero holding the line against the creeping evil of black kids with skittles really disturbs me.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [11 favorites]
I don't go around armed, because, well, you can't in New York City - like many majority-minority cities, they have intensely strict gun control. (#protip: that wasn't aimed at white people) But you had better believe I keep an eye out in my neighborhood. Because the police won't.
...I look like you, and my neighborhood looks like yours, and the police protect my neighborhood just fine.
....Have you considered that maybe it isn't the police or your neighborhood?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
...I look like you, and my neighborhood looks like yours, and the police protect my neighborhood just fine.
....Have you considered that maybe it isn't the police or your neighborhood?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [23 favorites]
well, corb, at first you tell us that "it is a reassurance that maybe I won't go to jail for life if I fight back" - now you tell us that you live in a city where you're not allowed to have a gun, anyway
you're just living a vicarious fantasy through george zimmerman's actions
that's pretty sick
posted by pyramid termite at 5:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
you're just living a vicarious fantasy through george zimmerman's actions
that's pretty sick
posted by pyramid termite at 5:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
Why, because the police do such a good job of protecting neighborhoods full of people that look like me?
People who look like what? I'm so confused.
posted by sweetkid at 5:01 PM on July 14, 2013
People who look like what? I'm so confused.
posted by sweetkid at 5:01 PM on July 14, 2013
I am, for absolutely no reason other than my own personal amusement, picturing Nosferatu with a FN FAL.
posted by elizardbits at 5:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 5:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
oh, god, now zimmerman says he wants to be a lawyer to "help other people like me"
posted by pyramid termite at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Really, NYPD doesn't need more George Zimmermans. They have enough on the force as it is.
Statistically, I'm fairly sure NYC is safer than anyplace in Florida that isn't a gated island.
posted by spitbull at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Statistically, I'm fairly sure NYC is safer than anyplace in Florida that isn't a gated island.
posted by spitbull at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is there any chance that we could please, maybe not make this thread about corb?
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Like lord_wolf, it is a bizarre feeling watching people swear that you, as a black male, are a walking weapon. I have had it all happen - white women who ran off the elevator when I got on. Store employees who tense up and follow at advantageous angles. Sadly, you get used to it after a while. Heck, I've adapted. It was broad daylight and I saw this dude coming around the corner with his dog in the gated community I lived in. I shuffled my feet to alert him, but still scared him. I would have used "startled", but the look on his face was like I was seven foot tall carrying a battle axe. There are lots of reasons why these things happen, and it's definitely more complex than my little stories, but I'll tell you, it's weird. Even after you've adapted.
posted by cashman at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [35 favorites]
posted by cashman at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [35 favorites]
I live right by the projects full of black men who don't have a lot of money and wear urban gear and whatnot and I feel safer around them and any NYPD than any George Zimmermans.
posted by sweetkid at 5:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 5:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
The temptation to perform vigilante acts under the guise of protecting one's community is a good part of why police officers have rules and regulations about the use of force. It seems to me like a good response to this deplorable incident would be to put some structure around neighborhood watches such that it's clear what the responsibilities and duties are when a watchperson is confronted with a potentially life or death situation. It seems pretty clear to me that these responsibilities and duties should be different from those of a normal citizen, one who didn't voluntarily sign up for a dangerous activity.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
oh, god, now zimmerman says he wants to be a lawyer to "help other people like me"
"Zimmerman, an insurance investigator, attended community college and was a credit shy of an associate's degree in criminal justice but was kicked out of school because he posed a danger to the campus, according to family sources."
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay.
posted by jaduncan at 5:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
"Zimmerman, an insurance investigator, attended community college and was a credit shy of an associate's degree in criminal justice but was kicked out of school because he posed a danger to the campus, according to family sources."
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay.
posted by jaduncan at 5:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [26 favorites]
If anyone wants to to take a break and listen to some compelling (and timely) interviews from Almost 50 years ago, here's Audio recordings of 1964 interviews with Civil Rights activists posted by Kattullus about a week and a half ago. On the other hand, it's also a sad record of the effort it took to get us this far (although, to be fair, there are forces pushing back the other direction, too).
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:16 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
No, Hispanic is a designation based upon people who speak Spanish.
My point still stands.
Language is generally confined to arbitrary geography or country borders. I'm thinking your statement more supports than discredits mine.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:17 PM on July 14, 2013
My point still stands.
Language is generally confined to arbitrary geography or country borders. I'm thinking your statement more supports than discredits mine.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:17 PM on July 14, 2013
Right, but my poorly-articulated point was that it has nothing to do with skin color.
posted by elizardbits at 5:18 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 5:18 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
It seems to me like a good response to this deplorable incident would be to put some structure around neighborhood watches
Zimmerman was not a member of any neighborhood watch, he was basically just a wandering troublemaker.
posted by Artw at 5:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Zimmerman was not a member of any neighborhood watch, he was basically just a wandering troublemaker.
posted by Artw at 5:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
I live right by the projects full of black men who don't have a lot of money and wear urban gear and whatnot and I feel safer around them and any NYPD than any George Zimmermans.
Yeah really, do people have any say in who is "volunteering" to "watch" their neighborhood. At least the police are truly a public service that in someway answer to their constituents. I think Zimmerman is a prime example that there are people who would volunteer to arm themselves and "watch" my neighborhood who are the last people on the planet I would want to have do that.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah really, do people have any say in who is "volunteering" to "watch" their neighborhood. At least the police are truly a public service that in someway answer to their constituents. I think Zimmerman is a prime example that there are people who would volunteer to arm themselves and "watch" my neighborhood who are the last people on the planet I would want to have do that.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think if there's one thing that is clear about this case, it's that there are no undisputed facts.I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic or actually believe that, either way you're being deliberately obtuse.
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on July 14 [+] [!]
Of course there are undisputed facts in this case. The ones I listed were agreed on by both Zimmerman's team and the prosecution, they are undisputed. The other undisputed fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin and Martin died from that gunshot wound. Again, both Zimmerman's defense team and the prosecution are in full agreement about that, therefore those facts are undisputed.
Zimmerman never denied that he shot Martin. Zimmerman never denied that he followed Martin. Zimmerman never denied that on the night in question he armed himself and went "patroling" in a neighborhood looking for "suspects". Therefore those facts are, by definition, undisputed.
In fact the only dispute centers entirely around what happened after Zimmerman left his vehicle. Zimmerman claims he left to peaceably look at a street sign and that Martin lunged out of nowhere to attack him. The prosecution contend that Zimmerman left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot (as the 911 transcript would seem to indicate) and from there attacked Martin. That is pretty much the only important factual dispute.
posted by sotonohito at 5:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
A different way of putting my sarcastic point, to clarify for phaedon's benefit and perhaps to provide some guidance on reading for context, which really can greatly enhance one's "critical thinking" skills, is that giving the jury the benefit of the doubt for giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt for fearing Trayvon Martin enough to drop him with a fucking 9 is exactly the same as giving corb's analogy to her fear of nyc the benefit of the doubt cuz hey, everybody agrees black guys are scary, right? It's only natural!
That's the fundamental point. The whole structure if the discussion s racist. That's what's wrong here. Trayvon was convicted of murdering himself, poor Zimmerman had to suffer the fear and trauma of killing him, that hero!
The jury played their part in a racist show. You can call it law, but you can't call it justice.
Bruce Springsteen: "American Skin."
posted by spitbull at 5:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
That's the fundamental point. The whole structure if the discussion s racist. That's what's wrong here. Trayvon was convicted of murdering himself, poor Zimmerman had to suffer the fear and trauma of killing him, that hero!
The jury played their part in a racist show. You can call it law, but you can't call it justice.
Bruce Springsteen: "American Skin."
posted by spitbull at 5:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Artw, my understanding is that the police were aware of what he was doing in terms of playing watchman. Maybe I'm wrong on that. In any case, I think making what should have happened in these circumstances explicit is important in general but particularly as a response to the legitimate concern that this verdict provides cover for people to shoot first and claim neighborhood watch later.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:28 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:28 PM on July 14, 2013
if I heard a 911 dispatcher say "You don't need to do that" in such a situation, I would personally interpret it as the 911 dispatcher being concerned for my safety, not anything else, and certainly not that authorities would prefer I did not do it.
Really? That's funny. I would interpret that statement as something a little closer to, "Hey, you don't need to do that, because you're not a cop and you don't have the right to be chasing people down and attacking them, and you getting involved will make everything messier for the actual cops when they're trying to do their job."
But then, I'm not a paranoid vigilante.
posted by palomar at 5:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [34 favorites]
Really? That's funny. I would interpret that statement as something a little closer to, "Hey, you don't need to do that, because you're not a cop and you don't have the right to be chasing people down and attacking them, and you getting involved will make everything messier for the actual cops when they're trying to do their job."
But then, I'm not a paranoid vigilante.
posted by palomar at 5:31 PM on July 14, 2013 [34 favorites]
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay
I think we have the basis to (what's the word they are using nowadays... Retread, rework, er.... rejump...?) REBOOT! the Police Academy series!
He was an outcast real estate investagator with big dreams, kicked out of school for being a lone gun....
OK, OK sorry, perhaps a bit too soon, but the absurdity struck me.
posted by edgeways at 5:32 PM on July 14, 2013
I think we have the basis to (what's the word they are using nowadays... Retread, rework, er.... rejump...?) REBOOT! the Police Academy series!
He was an outcast real estate investagator with big dreams, kicked out of school for being a lone gun....
OK, OK sorry, perhaps a bit too soon, but the absurdity struck me.
posted by edgeways at 5:32 PM on July 14, 2013
"Zimmerman, an insurance investigator, attended community college and was a credit shy of an associate's degree in criminal justice but was kicked out of school because he posed a danger to the campus, according to family sources."
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay.
He was expelled in March 2012 because the shooting became national news.
posted by riruro at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay.
He was expelled in March 2012 because the shooting became national news.
posted by riruro at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
The jury were not stupid. What they were was authoritarian. They were given very specific instructions, which they obediently followed. A week before closing people who knew the law, including some more sympathetic to TM than GZ, were warning us that the prosecution was doing a crap job according to the letter of the law. Basically their big strategy was a huge hail mary hoping for an emotion-driven jury nullification of what the law very plainly told them to do. And they didn't go for it.
The big problem here is the law which reverses the burden of proof in a situation where someone has admitted to murder but goes "OH NOES I WAS SOOOOO SCARED." The prosecution shouldn't have the burden of proving GZ wasn't scared, which it did, and that's a very hard standard to meet. GZ should have had the burden of proving that he offed a person for a damn good reason. But GZ didn't have to prove he committed murder for a good reason. He only had to raise a reasonable doubt that there WASN'T a good reason. Which the defense did adequately.
You really don't want to set a precedent for juries ignoring the law, as that leads to things like KKK ringleaders getting acquitted. What you want is laws that aren't asinine.
The law in Florida is asinine. I blame ALEC.
posted by localroger at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
The big problem here is the law which reverses the burden of proof in a situation where someone has admitted to murder but goes "OH NOES I WAS SOOOOO SCARED." The prosecution shouldn't have the burden of proving GZ wasn't scared, which it did, and that's a very hard standard to meet. GZ should have had the burden of proving that he offed a person for a damn good reason. But GZ didn't have to prove he committed murder for a good reason. He only had to raise a reasonable doubt that there WASN'T a good reason. Which the defense did adequately.
You really don't want to set a precedent for juries ignoring the law, as that leads to things like KKK ringleaders getting acquitted. What you want is laws that aren't asinine.
The law in Florida is asinine. I blame ALEC.
posted by localroger at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Yes generally when you cal 911 they tell you exactly what to do for the benefit of everyone's safety, including the police/fire/emts they are sending should they send those.
posted by sweetkid at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
oh, god, now zimmerman says he wants to be a lawyer to "help other people like me"
he is just pink clouding - the I Cant-Believe-I-Freaking-Got-Away-With-It edition.
Give it a week and he will be all about monetizing his plight as the Misunderstood, Yet Well Meaning Societal Avenger to the highest bidder.
In other news, a kid who shouldn't be dead is still dead.
posted by lampshade at 5:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
he is just pink clouding - the I Cant-Believe-I-Freaking-Got-Away-With-It edition.
Give it a week and he will be all about monetizing his plight as the Misunderstood, Yet Well Meaning Societal Avenger to the highest bidder.
In other news, a kid who shouldn't be dead is still dead.
posted by lampshade at 5:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The law in Florida is asinine. Self-defense is the same in all states except Ohio.
Despite what you think of this case, I can't imagine why anyone would want to give that right up.
posted by snaparapans at 5:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Despite what you think of this case, I can't imagine why anyone would want to give that right up.
posted by snaparapans at 5:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
fwiw, y'all, corb is latina, and I'm pretty sure that her point about "keeping an eye out in her neighborhood" is because the cops routinely avoid protecting residents of majority-minority neighborhoods, NOT because she feels she needs protecting from the other residents.
posted by KathrynT at 5:43 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 5:43 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
snaparapens, in most states self defense is an affirmative defense where, even if you do not have the burden of proof, you at least have to show a preponderance of evidence that you really had cause to kill your attacker. Florida (and recently, thanks to god help us a constitutional amendment, Louisiana) put the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that your self-defense claim isn't bullshit. That is not 49 states.
posted by localroger at 5:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by localroger at 5:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Just to add to the context for some, let me tell you about why the events in this case hit home for a lot of us.
As black teens growing up, many of us did this as a ritual. We got up from what we were doing and went to the neighborhood store and bought ridiculously sugary drinks, candy bars, "penny candy" like Now & Laters and other little hard candies that were in jars.
My thing was Tahitian Treat and those orange Hostess cupcakes in the plastic container. I would play a game or two of Dig-Dug or watch someone else. They only had one arcade game machine in the store, which was about the size of a couple of closets. Later when I was Trayvon's age, I'd get those little milk-sized cartons of "fruit juice" and a Twix on my way to and from playing street football.
This is what we did as black teens. Routinely. Like every day. Go to the store to buy a sugary drink, and candy. Sugary drink, candy. You can see it in movies like "Friday". It probably happened in Fat Albert episodes. That is what many black boys and girls did as kids. It was a complete ritual. Play Spades, play football, ride bikes, go to "the store".
So when you see something like this not only do you identify with the idea of going to a store for a drink and some candy, but imagining you could wind up shot dead in the chest after that is an especially horrifying recontextualization of what is a cherished and shared childhood memory for many.
And then to imagine that nothing would happen to the person who killed you is like reaching into your past and replacing your fond memories with nightmares. That is the most idyllic time many of us can remember, full of sunny days and fun times with friends you haven't seen since you were an innocent kid. So that sense of deep hurt and bewilderment that you see? This is part of it. It hits many of us at our core. It crushes us in the present and the past.
posted by cashman at 5:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [120 favorites]
As black teens growing up, many of us did this as a ritual. We got up from what we were doing and went to the neighborhood store and bought ridiculously sugary drinks, candy bars, "penny candy" like Now & Laters and other little hard candies that were in jars.
My thing was Tahitian Treat and those orange Hostess cupcakes in the plastic container. I would play a game or two of Dig-Dug or watch someone else. They only had one arcade game machine in the store, which was about the size of a couple of closets. Later when I was Trayvon's age, I'd get those little milk-sized cartons of "fruit juice" and a Twix on my way to and from playing street football.
This is what we did as black teens. Routinely. Like every day. Go to the store to buy a sugary drink, and candy. Sugary drink, candy. You can see it in movies like "Friday". It probably happened in Fat Albert episodes. That is what many black boys and girls did as kids. It was a complete ritual. Play Spades, play football, ride bikes, go to "the store".
So when you see something like this not only do you identify with the idea of going to a store for a drink and some candy, but imagining you could wind up shot dead in the chest after that is an especially horrifying recontextualization of what is a cherished and shared childhood memory for many.
And then to imagine that nothing would happen to the person who killed you is like reaching into your past and replacing your fond memories with nightmares. That is the most idyllic time many of us can remember, full of sunny days and fun times with friends you haven't seen since you were an innocent kid. So that sense of deep hurt and bewilderment that you see? This is part of it. It hits many of us at our core. It crushes us in the present and the past.
posted by cashman at 5:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [120 favorites]
the jury had to believe that Zimmerman felt he was in actual danger in order to find him not guilty.
In order to convict, the jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not feel he was in danger. This is not the standard for self defense in most states, and it's an extremely difficult hurdle for a prosecution to overcome. The prosecution was clearly hoping that the jurors' common sense would prevail, but instead the authoritarian ritual of the trial itself prevailed and the law was applied as written.
posted by localroger at 5:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
In order to convict, the jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not feel he was in danger. This is not the standard for self defense in most states, and it's an extremely difficult hurdle for a prosecution to overcome. The prosecution was clearly hoping that the jurors' common sense would prevail, but instead the authoritarian ritual of the trial itself prevailed and the law was applied as written.
posted by localroger at 5:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think it's reasonable to have a different set of self-defense rights and responsibilities if you volunteer as a neighborhood watchman, to go literally seeking out trouble, than you do as a normal person out and about on an evening stroll.
One of the many things that makes this case difficult to discuss is that it mixes the issue of whether it's okay for a person to put themselves in the situation Zimmerman put himself in in the first place with the issue of the outcome of that situation, the death of Trayvon Martin. Personally, I don't want amateur cops out there trying to make citizen's arrests. I think their duty should be to get somewhere safe and wait for the professionals to arrive. I think Zimmerman volunteered to step out of that car and should've been held to a higher standard of behavior and judgment as a consequence of that volunteerism, as laudable as it may be in the abstract.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
One of the many things that makes this case difficult to discuss is that it mixes the issue of whether it's okay for a person to put themselves in the situation Zimmerman put himself in in the first place with the issue of the outcome of that situation, the death of Trayvon Martin. Personally, I don't want amateur cops out there trying to make citizen's arrests. I think their duty should be to get somewhere safe and wait for the professionals to arrive. I think Zimmerman volunteered to step out of that car and should've been held to a higher standard of behavior and judgment as a consequence of that volunteerism, as laudable as it may be in the abstract.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
localroger, self-defense is an affirmative defense in all states, but the bar is very low, once that bar is met by the defendant, the burden shifts to the state. This is true in all states except Ohio where the burden of proof remains with the defendant.
posted by snaparapans at 5:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by snaparapans at 5:57 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Volunteering to watch his neighborhood, just like the Crips, the Mafia, and the KKK.
What made it Zimmerman's neighborhood more than Trayvon's? Black people aren't supposed to be visible there after dark is what.
posted by spitbull at 5:58 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
What made it Zimmerman's neighborhood more than Trayvon's? Black people aren't supposed to be visible there after dark is what.
posted by spitbull at 5:58 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
snaparapens I have been told by a Louisiana attorney that while it is called an "affirmative defense" in all states that the height of that bar varies greatly, and that it is particularly low in states like Florida and now Louisiana due to laws designed to grease the rails for gun ownership. He was quite insistent that the outcome would have been different in most states. But then, IWNTL and maybe I was misinformed. But I think this would end up being a national wake-up call if what you say is true.
Yes, I do think there should be a right to self defense. But I think you should have to make a damn good case for yourself if you are holding the gun and there's a cooling body and there's nobody to tell the tale but you.
posted by localroger at 6:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, I do think there should be a right to self defense. But I think you should have to make a damn good case for yourself if you are holding the gun and there's a cooling body and there's nobody to tell the tale but you.
posted by localroger at 6:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
P.S. This guy was one of the ones who lamented that the prosecution was doing a crap job, etc. and that GZ was going to get off despite all the obvious reasons he shouldn't, a week before closing arguments.
posted by localroger at 6:03 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by localroger at 6:03 PM on July 14, 2013
localroger, IANAL either, but I did some research, and yes Florida's SYG is only in a few states, but NY for instance has the similar language as Fl when it comes to self-defense as justifiable homicide.
posted by snaparapans at 6:06 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 6:06 PM on July 14, 2013
The story of race in America revolves around a whole horrible chain of incidents locked together one by one with no sign of it stopping. It's not so much this one case, I think, awful as it is, but the the sorry spectacle of yet another horrible miscarriage of justice. Because there are way too many people who have seen this happen to them and theirs over and over again. It's not the one incident, it's the weight of that fucking awful chain.
I think that's what so interesting about this story, basically, what it exposes. I mean, another story of race in America (and this is referred to in the Moyers piece I linked to earlier) is that we had a civil rights movement that was successful, African-Americans attending the best universities and going on to become lawyers and CEO's of large corporations, a multitude of tales of individual African-Americans success, even a black president. We can marvel at the progress.
I defer to the jury only in the sense that I willingly believe that they took more time out of their lives to focus exclusively on the details surrounding the case, without prejudice. Do I think the jury was biased? Not really. Could I be proven wrong? Fine, but make a good case for it, don't offend my willingness to get the bottom of this by casting aspersions.
But at the end of the day, Zimmerman's actual guilt in the eyes of God is secondary to the underlying message that this case gives credence to. That in our society, the life of a black man is not worth as much as the next man's. That even under the equal eyes of the law, involving people with the best possible intentions, men of color will weather a particular form of brutality on the streets, and in the courtroom, their assailants will walk free.
This is what I think people either connect with or are trying to hide under the rug. A chain of events that seems to have been triggered, rather uncontroversially, by an African-American teenager walking down the street.
And this does in fact bring us back to some of the problems we faced in 1967-68 when Martin Luther King gave his "Two Americas" speech and was assassinated shortly thereafter. The spectacle distracts us from the fact that, even though we can't be sure what happened that night, we do continue to systematically lock poor people of color into an inferior second-class status for life. Mass imprisonment, mass incarceration, mass underemployment.
So let me provide you a better quote from the Moyers interview I linked to earlier:
"MICHELLE ALEXANDER: McClesky versus Kemp has immunized the criminal justice system from judicial scrutiny for racial bias. It has made it virtually impossible to challenge any aspect, criminal justice process, for racial bias in the absence of proof of intentional discrimination, conscious, deliberate bias. Now, that's the very type of evidence that is nearly impossible to come by today.
When people know not to say, "The reason I stopped him was because he was black. The reason I sought the death penalty was because he was black." People know better than to say that the reason they are, you know, recommending higher sentences or harsher punishment for someone was because of their race.
So, evidence of conscious intentional bias is almost impossible to come by in the absence of some kind of admission. But the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the courthouse doors are closed to claims of racial bias in the absence of that kind of evidence, which has really immunized the entire criminal justice system from judicial and to a large extent public scrutiny of the severe racial disparities and forms of racial discrimination that go on every day unchecked by our courts and our legal process. "
posted by phaedon at 6:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
I think that's what so interesting about this story, basically, what it exposes. I mean, another story of race in America (and this is referred to in the Moyers piece I linked to earlier) is that we had a civil rights movement that was successful, African-Americans attending the best universities and going on to become lawyers and CEO's of large corporations, a multitude of tales of individual African-Americans success, even a black president. We can marvel at the progress.
I defer to the jury only in the sense that I willingly believe that they took more time out of their lives to focus exclusively on the details surrounding the case, without prejudice. Do I think the jury was biased? Not really. Could I be proven wrong? Fine, but make a good case for it, don't offend my willingness to get the bottom of this by casting aspersions.
But at the end of the day, Zimmerman's actual guilt in the eyes of God is secondary to the underlying message that this case gives credence to. That in our society, the life of a black man is not worth as much as the next man's. That even under the equal eyes of the law, involving people with the best possible intentions, men of color will weather a particular form of brutality on the streets, and in the courtroom, their assailants will walk free.
This is what I think people either connect with or are trying to hide under the rug. A chain of events that seems to have been triggered, rather uncontroversially, by an African-American teenager walking down the street.
And this does in fact bring us back to some of the problems we faced in 1967-68 when Martin Luther King gave his "Two Americas" speech and was assassinated shortly thereafter. The spectacle distracts us from the fact that, even though we can't be sure what happened that night, we do continue to systematically lock poor people of color into an inferior second-class status for life. Mass imprisonment, mass incarceration, mass underemployment.
So let me provide you a better quote from the Moyers interview I linked to earlier:
"MICHELLE ALEXANDER: McClesky versus Kemp has immunized the criminal justice system from judicial scrutiny for racial bias. It has made it virtually impossible to challenge any aspect, criminal justice process, for racial bias in the absence of proof of intentional discrimination, conscious, deliberate bias. Now, that's the very type of evidence that is nearly impossible to come by today.
When people know not to say, "The reason I stopped him was because he was black. The reason I sought the death penalty was because he was black." People know better than to say that the reason they are, you know, recommending higher sentences or harsher punishment for someone was because of their race.
So, evidence of conscious intentional bias is almost impossible to come by in the absence of some kind of admission. But the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the courthouse doors are closed to claims of racial bias in the absence of that kind of evidence, which has really immunized the entire criminal justice system from judicial and to a large extent public scrutiny of the severe racial disparities and forms of racial discrimination that go on every day unchecked by our courts and our legal process. "
posted by phaedon at 6:08 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
And, I believe that concealed weapons are allowed in most if not all states..
posted by snaparapans at 6:09 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 6:09 PM on July 14, 2013
snaparapens we in Louisiana were told after it was too late that obscure things like "which standard is applied" are extremely important and often don't show up in the overt language of what a law is making illegal. Louisiana's recent constitutional amendment didn't overtly create a SYG law, but it did reverse the burden of proof in a Floridian way in self-defense situations, creating what numerous onlookers called a "wild west" situation. (Mississippi has recently followed suit but with a state law.) These shadow attacks shifting the burden of proof are I have been told more dangerous than overt changes to the letter of the law because most people don't realize how important they are.
posted by localroger at 6:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by localroger at 6:12 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is what I think people either connect with or are trying to hide under the rug. A chain of events that seems to have been triggered, rather uncontroversially, by an African-American teenager walking down the street.
I would suggest it was triggered by a man who was hoped up on racial paranoia deciding to "patrol his neighborhood." That, and his ability to arm himself, was the catalyst, not Martin's trip to the store, which, you know, one should expect to be able to do.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:14 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I would suggest it was triggered by a man who was hoped up on racial paranoia deciding to "patrol his neighborhood." That, and his ability to arm himself, was the catalyst, not Martin's trip to the store, which, you know, one should expect to be able to do.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:14 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
localroger, from Volokh
Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.posted by snaparapans at 6:19 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
This wasn’t always the rule. The English common law rule at the time of the Framing was that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio still follows that rule; the Supreme Court has held (Martin v. Ohio (1987)) that placing this burden on the accused is constitutional. But to my knowledge, only Ohio still takes the view — all the other states do not.
""Zimmerman, an insurance investigator, attended community college and was a credit shy of an associate's degree in criminal justice but was kicked out of school because he posed a danger to the campus, according to family sources."
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay."
Fight Club 2
posted by klangklangston at 6:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
That would be rejected as implausible in a screenplay."
Fight Club 2
posted by klangklangston at 6:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
OK snaparapans I will have to buttonhole my lawyer friend with this and see what he says. Meanwhile, if that's the case, it is fucked up and I wonder how much it would cost to move to Ohio.
posted by localroger at 6:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by localroger at 6:21 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
localroger, this case did not use SYG, just standard self-defense:
Your friend may be referring to SYG laws recently enacted. These states have SYG:
Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas. Utah
posted by snaparapans at 6:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Your friend may be referring to SYG laws recently enacted. These states have SYG:
Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas. Utah
posted by snaparapans at 6:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
snap, I understand GZ didn't use SYG. I was told that self defense is applied differently in most states. Like I said, not being a lawyer I'll have to ask the lawyer about it next time I see him. Unfortunately, that will probably be next month.
posted by localroger at 6:28 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by localroger at 6:28 PM on July 14, 2013
Mod note: Deleted Park Slope derail. Come on, guys.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Sotonohito: you must have seen a different trial than I or apparently the jurors then. Your description appears to contain less falsehoods than many others here, which I guess is something. You claim that it's undisputed that George Zimmerman was out looking for suspicious people, whereas several witnesses testified that he went to the store every Sunday night and that's what he was doing at the time. As for the rest, George Zimmerman's accounts are indeed the only eyewitness testimony regarding how the actual physical confrontation began. However, his multiple accounts were all sufficiently consistent with each other and with all the evidence that was ultimately uncovered, to which he had no access at the time of at least his initial statements. The prosecution offered nothing to contest that George Zimmerman was the one with all the physical injuries (apart from the gun shot wound and abrasions on Trayvon Martin's knuckles), and that the clothing showed traces of George Zimmerman being on his back on the ground but Trayvon Martin's being on his knees. Rachel Jeantel testified that she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin at the time he again came into contact with George Zimmerman, and even if you believe everything she said she mentioned nothing to suggest that George Zimmerman initiated an attack either physically or with his gun.
"You can imagine quite a lot, apparently based on bunch of ignorance and straight-up racist privilege bullshit."
I was putting forth an account most consistent with George Zimmerman's guilt that was still plausible based on the evidence at trial. Your repeated falsehoods here I think say everything anyone needs to know about you. I'm so sorry that you did not get the hanging that you so desperately wanted, but I guess the jury decided the case for what it was and not based on your generalized notions of justice, which you cheapen with every lie you utter.
posted by cheburashka at 6:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
"You can imagine quite a lot, apparently based on bunch of ignorance and straight-up racist privilege bullshit."
I was putting forth an account most consistent with George Zimmerman's guilt that was still plausible based on the evidence at trial. Your repeated falsehoods here I think say everything anyone needs to know about you. I'm so sorry that you did not get the hanging that you so desperately wanted, but I guess the jury decided the case for what it was and not based on your generalized notions of justice, which you cheapen with every lie you utter.
posted by cheburashka at 6:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, if that's the case, it is fucked up and I wonder how much it would cost to move to Ohio.
I don't know localroger, Ohio, sounds like the last place you would want to be in a situation where you had to defend yourself and something bad happened (death). I think that the burden of proof for self-defense is best for the state to deal with, they are well funded and quite powerful, compared to most or all defendants.
posted by snaparapans at 6:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know localroger, Ohio, sounds like the last place you would want to be in a situation where you had to defend yourself and something bad happened (death). I think that the burden of proof for self-defense is best for the state to deal with, they are well funded and quite powerful, compared to most or all defendants.
posted by snaparapans at 6:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm so sorry that you did not get the hanging that you so desperately wanted
Do you not know the charged history of "hanging" in racial terms or
posted by sweetkid at 6:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [30 favorites]
Do you not know the charged history of "hanging" in racial terms or
posted by sweetkid at 6:47 PM on July 14, 2013 [30 favorites]
Ohio, sounds like the last place you would want to be in a situation where you had to defend yourself and something bad happened (death)
This is not a situation likely to apply to me as I don't carry a gun and have generally relied on other strategies to stay safe, including the years I lived in a really, really crappy suburban neighborhood where the previous tenant in the house I was renting had been a crack dealer. I can say from experience that even being the funky white couple in the bad mostly black neighborhood doesn't protect you from the negative attention of the police. You may not be what you eat, but you sure as hell are where you live.
But in that neighborhood I felt perfectly safe walking to the convenience store at 2 AM, once we were known as the funky white couple who belonged there.
Horrible as they usually are, the police at least have rules they're supposed to follow and consequences which occasionally fall when they screw up. I am much more bothered by the spectacle of an asshat like Zimmerman walking than I am by the possibility that I might be Zimmerman one day, because I will never be Zimmerman, because I am not enough of a self-important asshole to murder a kid because he's kicking my shit in a fight I picked.
posted by localroger at 6:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
This is not a situation likely to apply to me as I don't carry a gun and have generally relied on other strategies to stay safe, including the years I lived in a really, really crappy suburban neighborhood where the previous tenant in the house I was renting had been a crack dealer. I can say from experience that even being the funky white couple in the bad mostly black neighborhood doesn't protect you from the negative attention of the police. You may not be what you eat, but you sure as hell are where you live.
But in that neighborhood I felt perfectly safe walking to the convenience store at 2 AM, once we were known as the funky white couple who belonged there.
Horrible as they usually are, the police at least have rules they're supposed to follow and consequences which occasionally fall when they screw up. I am much more bothered by the spectacle of an asshat like Zimmerman walking than I am by the possibility that I might be Zimmerman one day, because I will never be Zimmerman, because I am not enough of a self-important asshole to murder a kid because he's kicking my shit in a fight I picked.
posted by localroger at 6:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
localroger, cleveland and new orleans are amongst the 10 most deadliest cities. I do not see the sense in moving to Ohio, at least for the reasons you give.
posted by snaparapans at 6:55 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 6:55 PM on July 14, 2013
Considering that I already live in New Orleans, how would moving to Ohio be a step down?
posted by localroger at 7:00 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by localroger at 7:00 PM on July 14, 2013
Considering that I already live in New Orleans
For some reason I had a strong impression you lived in London. I have no idea why.
posted by jaduncan at 7:01 PM on July 14, 2013
For some reason I had a strong impression you lived in London. I have no idea why.
posted by jaduncan at 7:01 PM on July 14, 2013
I had a strong impression you lived in London
Wow, on the internet no one knows you're whatever. London? I wonder myself where that came from.
posted by localroger at 7:04 PM on July 14, 2013
Wow, on the internet no one knows you're whatever. London? I wonder myself where that came from.
posted by localroger at 7:04 PM on July 14, 2013
jollyroger? pip pip cheerio? (I have an uncle who says that for real)
posted by sweetkid at 7:06 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by sweetkid at 7:06 PM on July 14, 2013
Just don't look "Roger" up in a meaning-of-names book. Hint: Unlike most names, which have male and female versions, there is no female version of "Roger."
posted by localroger at 7:07 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by localroger at 7:07 PM on July 14, 2013
Just don't look "Roger" up in a meaning-of-names book.
just did that obvi
posted by sweetkid at 7:10 PM on July 14, 2013
just did that obvi
posted by sweetkid at 7:10 PM on July 14, 2013
Roger, Roger.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 7:12 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 7:12 PM on July 14, 2013
famous with the spear.
I spent a decade wondering why Dad's Webster's Collegiate Dictionary said "skilled with the spear" until finally I saw the movie White Mischief.
Key line: "He rogered her right there on the football field."
posted by localroger at 7:15 PM on July 14, 2013
I spent a decade wondering why Dad's Webster's Collegiate Dictionary said "skilled with the spear" until finally I saw the movie White Mischief.
Key line: "He rogered her right there on the football field."
posted by localroger at 7:15 PM on July 14, 2013
And I have apparently rogered this thread with a roger-sized derail.
posted by localroger at 7:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by localroger at 7:17 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I guess it's good to have a little levity in a thread devoted to something tragic and awful. Maybe even a large, throbbing, erect levity.
posted by localroger at 7:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by localroger at 7:24 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Perhaps it's a useful way for the media to distract readers from the less-reported fact that none [one the jury] were African-American (while still suggesting legitimacy of the outcome).
I don't think I've seen anyone make the connection between the push to disenfranchise brown and black voters and the direct impact that will have on all potential future jury pools. You're going to see a lot more all-white juries if only white people can vote (or register to vote.)
posted by Room 641-A at 7:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
I don't think I've seen anyone make the connection between the push to disenfranchise brown and black voters and the direct impact that will have on all potential future jury pools. You're going to see a lot more all-white juries if only white people can vote (or register to vote.)
posted by Room 641-A at 7:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
There is in NY.
posted by elizardbits at 7:33 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by elizardbits at 7:33 PM on July 14, 2013
Room 641-B - I don't think there's a correlation between being a registered voter and being called for jury duty.
Maybe, but I've never heard of a place where the jury pool didn't come from the voter rolls.
posted by spaltavian at 7:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Maybe, but I've never heard of a place where the jury pool didn't come from the voter rolls.
posted by spaltavian at 7:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
sio42 in many, if not most states jurors are called from the voter rolls. If you don't vote there is no chance you will be called as a juror.
This has been recognized as a problem and in some jurisdictions it's different now but I think most places it's still the standard way of doing things.
posted by localroger at 7:35 PM on July 14, 2013
This has been recognized as a problem and in some jurisdictions it's different now but I think most places it's still the standard way of doing things.
posted by localroger at 7:35 PM on July 14, 2013
I am more and more convinced that it takes an incredible amount of strength to grow to adulthood in the US for a black child.
For a short while, in the early seventies, I thought that the race problems were being solved. My hope was renewed in 2008, but I'm giving up now. Not in my lifetime.
posted by francesca too at 7:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
For a short while, in the early seventies, I thought that the race problems were being solved. My hope was renewed in 2008, but I'm giving up now. Not in my lifetime.
posted by francesca too at 7:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whether Zimmerman followed Martin because he was black is irrelevant. If Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, that's the point of aggression for me, and evidence seems sufficient that he was pretty much kicking the crap out of Zimmerman and banging his head into the sidewalk, it's not unreasonable to think that Zimmerman used the gun in fear for his life.
Look, when you get into a fight as an adult, that's serious because you don't if the guy pouncing on you has any boundaries, will eventually stop, or just won't stop until he puts you in a coma. All you know is that the other guy wants to cause physical damage.
This case is just fraught with too many unknowns. Opinions are extremely divisive because there's a disconnect in what people see as the point of aggression. Is it the point where Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows Martin, or is it the point where Martin initiates the physical assault? I think it's the latter. And the defendant should ALWAYS get the benefit of reasonable doubt.
posted by savvysearch at 7:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
Look, when you get into a fight as an adult, that's serious because you don't if the guy pouncing on you has any boundaries, will eventually stop, or just won't stop until he puts you in a coma. All you know is that the other guy wants to cause physical damage.
This case is just fraught with too many unknowns. Opinions are extremely divisive because there's a disconnect in what people see as the point of aggression. Is it the point where Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows Martin, or is it the point where Martin initiates the physical assault? I think it's the latter. And the defendant should ALWAYS get the benefit of reasonable doubt.
posted by savvysearch at 7:36 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
evidence seems sufficient that he was pretty much kicking the crap out of Zimmerman and banging his head into the sidewalk
Can you indicate which evidence you are referring to?
posted by palomar at 7:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Can you indicate which evidence you are referring to?
posted by palomar at 7:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Savvysearch: And the defendant should ALWAYS get the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Yeah, except the part where the other guy is dead. How does he get the benefit of reasonable doubt?
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, except the part where the other guy is dead. How does he get the benefit of reasonable doubt?
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, to be more specific I said NY does it that way because the last time I had jury duty I asked how they found my new address so fast, since I hadn't updated my driver's license info, and the guy I was talking to said it was from my updated voter registration.
posted by elizardbits at 7:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by elizardbits at 7:41 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
sio: definitely depends on the state, though. Many do use only voter rolls, AFAIK.
posted by thegears at 7:41 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by thegears at 7:41 PM on July 14, 2013
cleveland and new orleans are amongst the 10 most deadliest cities.
Well, according to this article from Business Insider, (info sourced from the FBI's unverified 2012 crime report), Cleveland had 21 murders per 100,000, while New Orleans had 53 per 100,000.
So theoretically localroger could reduce his chance of being murdered by more than half if he came up here to the Mistake On The Lake.
Of course, in the real world, I'm, like, 110% certain localroger isn't a black man under 30, so his chance of being murdered no matter where he lives is pretty damn slim.
Also I wish people would shut up about Ohio being the only place without a Dirty-Harry-fantasy-based approach to claims of self-defense - because the more you mention it, the more likely it is that someone from our batshit-insane group of right-wing nutjobs in the State House will notice and decide that's the next thing they've gotta "fix."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:44 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, according to this article from Business Insider, (info sourced from the FBI's unverified 2012 crime report), Cleveland had 21 murders per 100,000, while New Orleans had 53 per 100,000.
So theoretically localroger could reduce his chance of being murdered by more than half if he came up here to the Mistake On The Lake.
Of course, in the real world, I'm, like, 110% certain localroger isn't a black man under 30, so his chance of being murdered no matter where he lives is pretty damn slim.
Also I wish people would shut up about Ohio being the only place without a Dirty-Harry-fantasy-based approach to claims of self-defense - because the more you mention it, the more likely it is that someone from our batshit-insane group of right-wing nutjobs in the State House will notice and decide that's the next thing they've gotta "fix."
posted by soundguy99 at 7:44 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
evidence seems sufficient that he was pretty much kicking the crap out of Zimmerman and banging his head into the sidewalk
Can you indicate which evidence you are referring to?
The pictures of profuse bleeding from the back of his head. Police account of blood from his nose and lips.
posted by savvysearch at 7:49 PM on July 14, 2013
Can you indicate which evidence you are referring to?
The pictures of profuse bleeding from the back of his head. Police account of blood from his nose and lips.
posted by savvysearch at 7:49 PM on July 14, 2013
The more I'm looking at what happened in the courtroom vs. other sources of information, the clearer it is the Prosecutor was NOT playing to win. They pretty much conceded Zimmerman's description of events despite a LOT of contradictory evidence. (How the hell does a guy pull a gun tucked in the back of his pants when he's on his back getting beat up?)
And don't forget how Martin's body was found by police on his back several feet from the sidewalk. If he was over Zimmerman facing downward, that gun must have the kick of a cannon...
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
And don't forget how Martin's body was found by police on his back several feet from the sidewalk. If he was over Zimmerman facing downward, that gun must have the kick of a cannon...
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
savvysearch; first of all, none of that indicates Martin started the fight. How can you possibly argue that's proof Martin initiated the fight? Seriously, answer that question.
Secondly, we can see the pictures too, and calling it "profuse" bleeding is a lie. It's a couple scrapes with dried blood. The Medical Examiner said the injuries were "insignificant".
Let me repeat that: The medical examiner said they were insignificant, and could have been caused by one hit. Look at the pictures; it looks like his head was scrapped against pavement hard. They were not caused by severe blows.
Finally, Martin wasn't arrested that day, so we really don't know those "injuries" are from any fight.
Please try to approach this honestly.
posted by spaltavian at 7:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
Secondly, we can see the pictures too, and calling it "profuse" bleeding is a lie. It's a couple scrapes with dried blood. The Medical Examiner said the injuries were "insignificant".
Let me repeat that: The medical examiner said they were insignificant, and could have been caused by one hit. Look at the pictures; it looks like his head was scrapped against pavement hard. They were not caused by severe blows.
Finally, Martin wasn't arrested that day, so we really don't know those "injuries" are from any fight.
Please try to approach this honestly.
posted by spaltavian at 7:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [14 favorites]
How do we know Martin initiated it? And if he did, why was he an aggressor rather than standing his ground because he was afraid for his life because a strange man with a gun was following him and then confronted him?
This. I've been pointing this out since I first heard about the case, and I can't believe how people are overlooking such an obvious hypocrisy. If a large, angry man is stalking you with a gun, and you punch them in self-defense, isn't that standing your ground? Of course if the large man shoots you after you punch him, that's also self-defense... which is why this kind of stand-your-ground law is so absurd.
posted by Green Winnebago at 7:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
This. I've been pointing this out since I first heard about the case, and I can't believe how people are overlooking such an obvious hypocrisy. If a large, angry man is stalking you with a gun, and you punch them in self-defense, isn't that standing your ground? Of course if the large man shoots you after you punch him, that's also self-defense... which is why this kind of stand-your-ground law is so absurd.
posted by Green Winnebago at 7:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
Savvysearch: And the defendant should ALWAYS get the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Yeah, except the part where the other guy is dead. How does he get the benefit of reasonable doubt?
No. I stand by what I said. Even if the other guy is dead, the person on trial should always get the benefit of reasonable doubt. Someone potentially getting off for a crime he committed is much less morally severe than sending a potentially innocent person to jail. In this case, there's too many unknown, too much reliance on whether or not you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, but not much evidence to contest or support it.
posted by savvysearch at 7:55 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
And don't forget how Martin's body was found by police on his back several feet from the sidewalk
Because this isn't true. Come on guys, if you're going to criticize what happened at least get the facts correct.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Because this isn't true. Come on guys, if you're going to criticize what happened at least get the facts correct.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
And yet, none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's hands or under his nails. If Martin grabbed Zimmerman's head and bashed it into the sidewalk, and punched Zimmerman in the face hard enough to draw blood, some of Zimmerman's DNA should have been present on Martin's hands. It wasn't.
And were those pictures of Zimmerman taken immediately after the shooting? Or was it several hours later, after he'd been allowed to go home and then return to the police station to give a statement?
posted by palomar at 7:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
And were those pictures of Zimmerman taken immediately after the shooting? Or was it several hours later, after he'd been allowed to go home and then return to the police station to give a statement?
posted by palomar at 7:56 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
too much reliance on whether or not you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth,
A lot of trials hinge on this, actually, and plenty of people go to jail because the defense's entire story isn't credible. I have no problem believing the prosecution's conception of events, even if I'm willing to accept that the peculiarities of Florida law allow Zimmerman to walk and judging Zimmerman based on that.
posted by deanc at 7:58 PM on July 14, 2013
A lot of trials hinge on this, actually, and plenty of people go to jail because the defense's entire story isn't credible. I have no problem believing the prosecution's conception of events, even if I'm willing to accept that the peculiarities of Florida law allow Zimmerman to walk and judging Zimmerman based on that.
posted by deanc at 7:58 PM on July 14, 2013
savysearch, you actually said those so-called injuries were evidence of Martin starting the fight. Again, I ask you, how is that so?
posted by spaltavian at 7:58 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by spaltavian at 7:58 PM on July 14, 2013
Come on guys, if you're going to criticize what happened at least get the facts correct
Oh, yeah, here he is on the sidewalk... (trigger warning: dead)
I said I was not limiting myself to what the Prosecution put into testimony, because they weren't really trying to get a conviction.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:05 PM on July 14, 2013
Oh, yeah, here he is on the sidewalk... (trigger warning: dead)
I said I was not limiting myself to what the Prosecution put into testimony, because they weren't really trying to get a conviction.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:05 PM on July 14, 2013
Because this isn't true.
In light of the above photo, what is your assertion based on?
posted by spaltavian at 8:07 PM on July 14, 2013
In light of the above photo, what is your assertion based on?
posted by spaltavian at 8:07 PM on July 14, 2013
The idea that this is the extent of what happens when your head is bashed into concrete for a minute seems... implausible.
posted by Flunkie at 8:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by Flunkie at 8:07 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Yeah, exactly. I've had more serious injuries requiring more medical attention from falling out of bed due to a Meniere's attack.
posted by elizardbits at 8:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 8:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The fact that Martin was found face down and turned over when Sgt. Raimondo attempted to give him mouth to mouth resuscitation, spaltavian?
posted by Justinian at 8:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 8:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
This. I've been pointing this out since I first heard about the case, and I can't believe how people are overlooking such an obvious hypocrisy. If a large, angry man is stalking you with a gun, and you punch them in self-defense, isn't that standing your ground? Of course if the large man shoots you after you punch him, that's also self-defense... which is why this kind of stand-your-ground law is so absurd.
No one is overlooking it. It's just irrelevant to the case because it's not about whether Martin had a defense or reason to punch him. That's an entirely different issue. Had Martin put Zimmerman in a coma out of fear for his safety, I'd consider that would probably be defendable as well. But it's Zimmerman who is on trial, and it's reasonable to believe that he felt his life was in jeopardy during that fight, whether real or perceived.
posted by savvysearch at 8:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
No one is overlooking it. It's just irrelevant to the case because it's not about whether Martin had a defense or reason to punch him. That's an entirely different issue. Had Martin put Zimmerman in a coma out of fear for his safety, I'd consider that would probably be defendable as well. But it's Zimmerman who is on trial, and it's reasonable to believe that he felt his life was in jeopardy during that fight, whether real or perceived.
posted by savvysearch at 8:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
On Trayvon Martin and Fear. "..the mother of a 17-year old black boy worried that the solution was teaching our sons “how to behave like the slavery/Jim Crow eras. Stop when stalked. Cooperate, don’t talk back, keep eyes downcast, keep hands visible, apologize, carry ID, never ever state your right to do what you had the right to do.” I categorically reject that we have to teach our sons to act like slaves to keep them safe.
Apparently protestors on the 10 are being shot at with rubber bullets by LAPD according to numerous Twitter accounts.
About a dozen arrested in NYC march.
Seattle march getting underway.
Other Twitter stuff:
@jordanbks all these folks who don't see race... They'd see my black ass strolling through their very nice neighborhood every time
@NFLGoodwitch When a racist tells u to go back to Africa, I wonder if they have a particular country in mind.
@ZulaQi Black people don't look for racism. We are minding our own business trying to live and your racism finds us. We'd love some breathing time.
posted by emjaybee at 8:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Apparently protestors on the 10 are being shot at with rubber bullets by LAPD according to numerous Twitter accounts.
About a dozen arrested in NYC march.
Seattle march getting underway.
Other Twitter stuff:
@jordanbks all these folks who don't see race... They'd see my black ass strolling through their very nice neighborhood every time
@NFLGoodwitch When a racist tells u to go back to Africa, I wonder if they have a particular country in mind.
@ZulaQi Black people don't look for racism. We are minding our own business trying to live and your racism finds us. We'd love some breathing time.
posted by emjaybee at 8:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [8 favorites]
Giving him mouth to mouth required moving him several feet? I genuinely don't understand. Someone said he was a few feet from the sidewalk; was the only part you objected to was the "on his back" part?
posted by spaltavian at 8:16 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by spaltavian at 8:16 PM on July 14, 2013
Er, it seems like if your comment is "on his back a few feet from the sidewalk" then "on his back" is half the statement? But okay, sure, that was the only part that was incorrect so far as I am aware.
posted by Justinian at 8:17 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Justinian at 8:17 PM on July 14, 2013
First picture of the Zimmerman jury released?
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on July 14, 2013 [6 favorites]
But... there are seven...
must have caught one of the alternates.
posted by Justinian at 8:22 PM on July 14, 2013
must have caught one of the alternates.
posted by Justinian at 8:22 PM on July 14, 2013
Zimmerman, because I am not enough of a self-important asshole to murder a kid because he's kicking my shit in a fight I picked.
Yeah, I'll say right here that if I was a CCW I'd just be incredibly cautious about getting in situations with a potential for violence.
I used to be a soldier, and wouldn't have pursued specific people around Northern Ireland - as much as it would have been my legal right to do so and occasionally even a sanctioned action - and thought that if the teenage kids I was threw a petrol bomb at me for it and I shot them that I would have done anything but created a situation where I was pretty much culpable for the deaths of those kids. The duty of the administration of force is to do everything possible to avoid the need to use that force against people, even if the alternative is moderately serious injury.
Being an armed authority figure comes with a lot of responsibility, and a lot of that is avoiding situations but noting faces for future reference. I can't quite fathom wanting the power without a well-defined social role; it just means that any confrontation is unpredictable for all parties because of the lack of shared understanding and should be avoided at all cost because of the risk of serious injury or death for everyone involved.
posted by jaduncan at 8:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I'll say right here that if I was a CCW I'd just be incredibly cautious about getting in situations with a potential for violence.
I used to be a soldier, and wouldn't have pursued specific people around Northern Ireland - as much as it would have been my legal right to do so and occasionally even a sanctioned action - and thought that if the teenage kids I was threw a petrol bomb at me for it and I shot them that I would have done anything but created a situation where I was pretty much culpable for the deaths of those kids. The duty of the administration of force is to do everything possible to avoid the need to use that force against people, even if the alternative is moderately serious injury.
Being an armed authority figure comes with a lot of responsibility, and a lot of that is avoiding situations but noting faces for future reference. I can't quite fathom wanting the power without a well-defined social role; it just means that any confrontation is unpredictable for all parties because of the lack of shared understanding and should be avoided at all cost because of the risk of serious injury or death for everyone involved.
posted by jaduncan at 8:23 PM on July 14, 2013 [12 favorites]
I stand corrected about the "on his back", but the scenario of what happened AFTER the shot was fired still strains my suspension of disbelief. If Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when shot, did he get up and do a full death scene or did Zimmerman push him off then roll him over a couple times so he couldn't see his dead stare?
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:24 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:24 PM on July 14, 2013
Regardless of how anyone feels about the trial verdict, I really, really hope no one goes after these women.
posted by corb at 8:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 8:25 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
oneswellfoop: The defense's scenario is that Martin fell forward after Zimmerman shot him and Zimmerman checked his hands for weapons, then got up and moved away, and then Martin pulled his arms inward. The prosecution doesn't have a clear scenario beyond "nuh-uh" which was part of the problem with getting any kind of verdict.
posted by Justinian at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013
posted by Justinian at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013
corb: "Regardless of how anyone feels about the trial verdict, I really, really hope no one goes after these women."
But what if it's just a group of concerned, responsible gun owners who just follow them around to make sure they're not up to no good? Would that be okay?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [41 favorites]
But what if it's just a group of concerned, responsible gun owners who just follow them around to make sure they're not up to no good? Would that be okay?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [41 favorites]
did anyone go after the Casey Anthony Jurors?
posted by sweetkid at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Has there ever been a case of anyone going after jurors post-verdict in any kind of high profile case? I can't think of a single one. Seems like a weird thing to worry about.
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Can we ignore the continuous fearmongering? It's pretty tasteless.
posted by palomar at 8:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by palomar at 8:30 PM on July 14, 2013 [13 favorites]
The prosecution doesn't have a clear scenario beyond "nuh-uh" which was part of the problem with getting any kind of verdict.
...which is just more evidence that the Prosecution wasn't even trying...
I was on a jury in a murder trial once. The Prosecution should ALWAYS spell out its version of events. (Of course, in my case, it was a crappy version... but they got a hung jury and a conviction the second try... it was a white guy who got shot, of course)
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:32 PM on July 14, 2013
...which is just more evidence that the Prosecution wasn't even trying...
I was on a jury in a murder trial once. The Prosecution should ALWAYS spell out its version of events. (Of course, in my case, it was a crappy version... but they got a hung jury and a conviction the second try... it was a white guy who got shot, of course)
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:32 PM on July 14, 2013
Seems like a weird thing to worry about.
Not if you wanted to divert attention by creating innocent victims and whip up paranoia about racial violence-- the same sort of paranoia that drove Zimmerman to stalk and kill.
posted by deanc at 8:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Not if you wanted to divert attention by creating innocent victims and whip up paranoia about racial violence-- the same sort of paranoia that drove Zimmerman to stalk and kill.
posted by deanc at 8:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Whether Zimmerman followed Martin because he was black is irrelevant.
I guess there are two issues. Are the existing self defense laws in Florida just and sane? And was Zimmerman guilty based on Florida law as is?
IMO, if someone is going to carry a gun and use it to kill someone, then he should show there was a need to use it before he can be declared not guilty of manslaughter. That hasn't happened in this case. We really don't know what happened, but it seems clear that Zimmerman had a dangerous, criminal personality. It should not be legal for someone with Zimmerman's criminal history to be carrying a concealed handgun to begin with. And it should not be legal for adult males to follow around teenage boys simply *because they are black*.
As regards Florida law as it is written, it seems to me Zimmerman could have been convicted of manslaughter, or if not that should have been convicted of a lesser offense but IANAL.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I guess there are two issues. Are the existing self defense laws in Florida just and sane? And was Zimmerman guilty based on Florida law as is?
IMO, if someone is going to carry a gun and use it to kill someone, then he should show there was a need to use it before he can be declared not guilty of manslaughter. That hasn't happened in this case. We really don't know what happened, but it seems clear that Zimmerman had a dangerous, criminal personality. It should not be legal for someone with Zimmerman's criminal history to be carrying a concealed handgun to begin with. And it should not be legal for adult males to follow around teenage boys simply *because they are black*.
As regards Florida law as it is written, it seems to me Zimmerman could have been convicted of manslaughter, or if not that should have been convicted of a lesser offense but IANAL.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:34 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
there's an about 17-year-old black kid on my block who waves when he's with his friends and I always wave back a bit shyly - I just don't really know what to say, I'm like twice his age, I don't know if he thinks I'm snobby because I live in a nicer building and not in the projects or whatever, or that I'm shy, but he's not threatening at all, it's just tiring to go through the gauntlet of "this guy's ok" " that guy's aggressive" etc etc.
Once I was walking home late at night and one guy started giving me all this hassle - "hey beautiful, where you goin beautiful etc" and the kid was outside and was like, "hey, leave her alone she's my friend! I know she never talks and she's pretty but let her do what she's doing and chill, ok?"
Sweet 17 year old black kid in a hoodie, hanging out outside the deli because where else is there to go., Spoke up for me when a lot of people wouldn't.
posted by sweetkid at 8:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [83 favorites]
Once I was walking home late at night and one guy started giving me all this hassle - "hey beautiful, where you goin beautiful etc" and the kid was outside and was like, "hey, leave her alone she's my friend! I know she never talks and she's pretty but let her do what she's doing and chill, ok?"
Sweet 17 year old black kid in a hoodie, hanging out outside the deli because where else is there to go., Spoke up for me when a lot of people wouldn't.
posted by sweetkid at 8:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [83 favorites]
Has there ever been a case of anyone going after jurors post-verdict in any kind of high profile case? I can't think of a single one. Seems like a weird thing to worry about.
Violence-wise, I can't think so. But in terms of harassment, I think people have. Personally, I found the faked photos of the jurors tasteless, and I just hope this doesn't herald the dawning of new mockery/harassment targets. I hope these women can go back to their lives peacefully, without people giving them grief over their verdict. (Which honestly, no one knows anything about. It could have been one woman who held out for acquittal for al anyone knows)
posted by corb at 8:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Violence-wise, I can't think so. But in terms of harassment, I think people have. Personally, I found the faked photos of the jurors tasteless, and I just hope this doesn't herald the dawning of new mockery/harassment targets. I hope these women can go back to their lives peacefully, without people giving them grief over their verdict. (Which honestly, no one knows anything about. It could have been one woman who held out for acquittal for al anyone knows)
posted by corb at 8:37 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
ugh, horrifying. I can't believe this verdict, though I suppose it shouldn't be surprising. This whole process has been a referendum on whether or not people of color are allowed to exist freely in public space, and the answer apparently is no.
posted by threeants at 8:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by threeants at 8:38 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'll reserve my post-trial fallout concerns for the very real pain Martin's family is going through; not some imagined hypothetical about jury harassment.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:42 PM on July 14, 2013 [31 favorites]
Amazing that everyone proclaimed that the system was working when the charges were filed and when the jury was listening to the trial...but after the jury heard the evidence and made a decision now the system is broken and it's not justice...just damn ironic, it seems.
posted by OhSusannah at 8:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by OhSusannah at 8:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I haven't been following this trial, but from what I understand there was no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist, or that his crime was racially motivated. Therefore to my mind he cannot be convicted of a hate crime. For me, the case then becomes about whether his action was legal and justifiable. Assuming the jury wasn't racist, I assume this is what they ruled according to Florida law.
Is Florida's law f-ed up? I think so. Did Zimmerman use too much force to "defend" himself? Yup for me on that one too.
So in the end it doesn't matter what color the kid was to me -- Zimmerman still should've been convicted of some kind of manslaughter.
posted by nowhere man at 8:52 PM on July 14, 2013
Is Florida's law f-ed up? I think so. Did Zimmerman use too much force to "defend" himself? Yup for me on that one too.
So in the end it doesn't matter what color the kid was to me -- Zimmerman still should've been convicted of some kind of manslaughter.
posted by nowhere man at 8:52 PM on July 14, 2013
"Yeah, I'll say right here that if I was a CCW I'd just be incredibly cautious about getting in situations with a potential for violence. ..."
posted by jaduncan at 11:23 PM on July 14
You raise a couple of good points, jaduncan, and I think the attitude you describe here is the most common one among CCW permittees that I know. But the difference between soldiers and CCW permittees that is most important is the uniform that symbolizes the political authorization to carry weapons, and use force in the service of political ends. Everything you do in uniform, as a soldier, necessarily envelopes political motives, else you wouldn't be on duty, where you come in conflict with others. But a CCW permittee is required to keep his weapons hidden, because he has no uniform, and no real political authorization for the use of force, beyond preservation of his own hide, or perhaps, at a stretch, the immediate preservation of those in direct danger about him.
Hence, every military maintains extensive means, even up to the level of national diplomacy, of handling the political fallout of use of force, whereas no private CCW permittee should ever be put in the position of having to do that. What makes the Zimmerman case so interesting to many is precisely that Zimmerman and his attorneys have tried to deflect the political ire of millions, with only a bit of state level protection from the court, for many months, as the legally more immediate questions of culpability have been decided in an orderly manner.
And now, even acquitted, Zimmerman, it seems, is going to have to shoulder the burden of societal ill will nearly alone. To the extent he is expected to do that indefinitely, the worth of acquittal by our justice system, if not our justice system itself, is greatly devalued. As citizens, we agree to accept the verdict of juries as final, because if we don't, there is no point to juries, or jurisprudence.
I hope this nation lets Zimmerman be whatever he will be by his own design, in the future, so that it may be whatever it will best be.
posted by paulsc at 8:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 11:23 PM on July 14
You raise a couple of good points, jaduncan, and I think the attitude you describe here is the most common one among CCW permittees that I know. But the difference between soldiers and CCW permittees that is most important is the uniform that symbolizes the political authorization to carry weapons, and use force in the service of political ends. Everything you do in uniform, as a soldier, necessarily envelopes political motives, else you wouldn't be on duty, where you come in conflict with others. But a CCW permittee is required to keep his weapons hidden, because he has no uniform, and no real political authorization for the use of force, beyond preservation of his own hide, or perhaps, at a stretch, the immediate preservation of those in direct danger about him.
Hence, every military maintains extensive means, even up to the level of national diplomacy, of handling the political fallout of use of force, whereas no private CCW permittee should ever be put in the position of having to do that. What makes the Zimmerman case so interesting to many is precisely that Zimmerman and his attorneys have tried to deflect the political ire of millions, with only a bit of state level protection from the court, for many months, as the legally more immediate questions of culpability have been decided in an orderly manner.
And now, even acquitted, Zimmerman, it seems, is going to have to shoulder the burden of societal ill will nearly alone. To the extent he is expected to do that indefinitely, the worth of acquittal by our justice system, if not our justice system itself, is greatly devalued. As citizens, we agree to accept the verdict of juries as final, because if we don't, there is no point to juries, or jurisprudence.
I hope this nation lets Zimmerman be whatever he will be by his own design, in the future, so that it may be whatever it will best be.
posted by paulsc at 8:53 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The only similarly polarized case I can really think of is the OJ Simpson case, which certainly involved juror harassment afterwards.
Crawford got racially motivated hate mail from people "hoping that I died" and phone calls in the middle of the night. Even after moving three times since the trial, she still gets letters questioning her decision.posted by corb at 8:54 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Personally, I found the faked photos of the jurors tasteless, and I just hope this doesn't herald the dawning of new mockery/harassment targets. I hope these women can go back to their lives peacefully, without people giving them grief over their verdict.
For fuck's sake; yes, how will these women sleep at night knowing someone photoshoped Paula Deen into a courtroom?
Your concern isn't sincere, just stop.
posted by spaltavian at 8:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
For fuck's sake; yes, how will these women sleep at night knowing someone photoshoped Paula Deen into a courtroom?
Your concern isn't sincere, just stop.
posted by spaltavian at 8:59 PM on July 14, 2013 [27 favorites]
The only similarly polarized case I can really think of is the OJ Simpson case, which certainly involved juror harassment afterwards.
I guess in the balance of things, while jury harassment apparently is a thing that happens, it doesn't exactly register high on my list of concerns when compared to what Martin's family must be feeling right now, and "but oh I hope the jury is OK!" strikes me as a strangely obscure place to lay your sympathies. But I suppose we all have different priorities.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
I guess in the balance of things, while jury harassment apparently is a thing that happens, it doesn't exactly register high on my list of concerns when compared to what Martin's family must be feeling right now, and "but oh I hope the jury is OK!" strikes me as a strangely obscure place to lay your sympathies. But I suppose we all have different priorities.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:00 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
And now, even acquitted, Zimmerman, it seems, is going to have to shoulder the burden of societal ill will nearly alone. To the extent he is expected to do that indefinitely, the worth of acquittal by our justice system, if not our justice system itself, is greatly devalued.
The bedrock principle of our legal system is that the state may not take away "life, liberty, and property" without due process, not that the public is obligated to like or respect you if you are acquitted. He's the same scumbag acquitted as he would have been convicted, and just the same as before he was charged, when there wasn't even going to be a trial.
But once again, after a generation of praising and supporting immoral behavior that was protected by the law, we have a clear failure to discern the difference between what is legal and what is good. It's just that it's escalated from mistreating employees in the workplace to killing teenagers.
posted by deanc at 9:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
The bedrock principle of our legal system is that the state may not take away "life, liberty, and property" without due process, not that the public is obligated to like or respect you if you are acquitted. He's the same scumbag acquitted as he would have been convicted, and just the same as before he was charged, when there wasn't even going to be a trial.
But once again, after a generation of praising and supporting immoral behavior that was protected by the law, we have a clear failure to discern the difference between what is legal and what is good. It's just that it's escalated from mistreating employees in the workplace to killing teenagers.
posted by deanc at 9:01 PM on July 14, 2013 [4 favorites]
"Bedrock principle of our legal system is that the state may not take away "life, liberty, and property" without due process, not that the public is obligated to like or respect you if you are acquitted. ..."
posted by deanc at 12:01 AM on July 15
I'll argue that any "liking" IS necessarily individual and optional, but that the presumption of basic respect to the acquitted is an essential component of liberty, if liberty has any real meaning, and society is to remain civil.
posted by paulsc at 9:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by deanc at 12:01 AM on July 15
I'll argue that any "liking" IS necessarily individual and optional, but that the presumption of basic respect to the acquitted is an essential component of liberty, if liberty has any real meaning, and society is to remain civil.
posted by paulsc at 9:05 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
And now, even acquitted, Zimmerman, it seems, is going to have to shoulder the burden of societal ill will nearly alone.
I'm sure Zimmerman will have plenty of support. How much were people willing to donate to his cause over the internet?
I hope this nation lets Zimmerman be whatever he will be by his own design, in the future, so that it may be whatever it will best be.
I assume you felt the same thing about OJ Simpson? and feel our nation is not as good as it would have been had OJ been invited back into the broadcast booth immediately after his acquittal?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm sure Zimmerman will have plenty of support. How much were people willing to donate to his cause over the internet?
I hope this nation lets Zimmerman be whatever he will be by his own design, in the future, so that it may be whatever it will best be.
I assume you felt the same thing about OJ Simpson? and feel our nation is not as good as it would have been had OJ been invited back into the broadcast booth immediately after his acquittal?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:06 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Seems like a weird thing to worry about.
How can you pick just one!
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:10 PM on July 14, 2013
How can you pick just one!
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:10 PM on July 14, 2013
And now, even acquitted, Zimmerman, it seems, is going to have to shoulder the burden of societal ill will nearly alone. To the extent he is expected to do that indefinitely, the worth of acquittal by our justice system, if not our justice system itself, is greatly devalued. As citizens, we agree to accept the verdict of juries as final
What is this bullshit? Anyone can feel any way they like about whoever, juries or no. I'm quite sure poor little Zimmerman will have no shortage of people telling him he did the right thing, so no need to handwring about "societal ill will".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
What is this bullshit? Anyone can feel any way they like about whoever, juries or no. I'm quite sure poor little Zimmerman will have no shortage of people telling him he did the right thing, so no need to handwring about "societal ill will".
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:13 PM on July 14, 2013 [9 favorites]
Zimmerman is a dangerous moral deviant who, by dint of a peculiarity of Florida law, is not guilty of a crime. That does not mean he is entitled to our respect or attention, or anything other than the peaceful enjoyment of the public resources that he is entitled to by dint of being a (technically) law-abiding taxpaying citizen.
Just because you haven't been convicted of a crime (you're not supposed to be convicted of a crime, you low-expectation-having motherf'er!) doesn't mean people want you anywhere near their children or to be in any way associated with you. That would be true even if this case had never been brought to trial, as originally intended.
We can't say that the government "shouldn't legislate morality" and then go on to say, "well, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so he's a good person we should respect." The law is completely agnostic as to whether someone rises to a moral level to which he can expect "basic respect" or societal goodwill.
posted by deanc at 9:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Just because you haven't been convicted of a crime (you're not supposed to be convicted of a crime, you low-expectation-having motherf'er!) doesn't mean people want you anywhere near their children or to be in any way associated with you. That would be true even if this case had never been brought to trial, as originally intended.
We can't say that the government "shouldn't legislate morality" and then go on to say, "well, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so he's a good person we should respect." The law is completely agnostic as to whether someone rises to a moral level to which he can expect "basic respect" or societal goodwill.
posted by deanc at 9:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
"... I assume you felt the same thing about OJ Simpson? and feel our nation is not as good as it would have been had OJ been invited back into the broadcast booth immediately after his acquittal?"
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:06 AM on July 15
I did, and do, feel the same about OJ's murder acquittal. But I never liked him as a broadcaster. If enough others had, after his acquittal, I would have respected his right to employment as such, and his listeners rights to enjoy his broadcasts, using the public airwaves. That he was never accorded such a public position again, is probably less a failure of the society we live in, than of his own issues, including the civil lawsuits that he faced. But I did find that those who were still arguing his prosecution's case, 2 and 3 years later, weren't doing much for either justice, or society at large.
And I do think that a civil society, with the power to jeopardize and imprison, must finally release its claims on persons, after acquittal or completion of sentence. We no longer brand the flesh for life, as we did in more primitive times, and the end of that practice should not have been merely symbolic.
posted by paulsc at 9:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:06 AM on July 15
I did, and do, feel the same about OJ's murder acquittal. But I never liked him as a broadcaster. If enough others had, after his acquittal, I would have respected his right to employment as such, and his listeners rights to enjoy his broadcasts, using the public airwaves. That he was never accorded such a public position again, is probably less a failure of the society we live in, than of his own issues, including the civil lawsuits that he faced. But I did find that those who were still arguing his prosecution's case, 2 and 3 years later, weren't doing much for either justice, or society at large.
And I do think that a civil society, with the power to jeopardize and imprison, must finally release its claims on persons, after acquittal or completion of sentence. We no longer brand the flesh for life, as we did in more primitive times, and the end of that practice should not have been merely symbolic.
posted by paulsc at 9:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
And I do think that a civil society, with the power to jeopardize and imprison, must finally release its claims on persons, after acquittal or completion of sentence. We no longer brand the flesh for life, as we did in more primitive times, and the end of that practice should not have been merely symbolic.
Well, the great thing about living in a free and democratic society is people are going to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on a particular person, and neither you nor I nor anyone else can do anything to stop it.
I always get a little weirded out by talk of what "society" is supposed to be doing. Society is all of us. What you seem to mean is "the state" (since you talk about "the power to jeopardize and imprison") which, while a segment of society, is not all it entails.
As has been pointed out, Zimmerman's acquittal was not based on him being this totally innocent person who committed no violence against Martin. The facts of the case have been very public for a long time. I think people are entitled to draw their own conclusions about the guy, based on these facts, and what a single-digit selection of people have to say about a very narrow definition of his actions should not really hold sway over our own agency to think for ourselves.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Well, the great thing about living in a free and democratic society is people are going to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on a particular person, and neither you nor I nor anyone else can do anything to stop it.
I always get a little weirded out by talk of what "society" is supposed to be doing. Society is all of us. What you seem to mean is "the state" (since you talk about "the power to jeopardize and imprison") which, while a segment of society, is not all it entails.
As has been pointed out, Zimmerman's acquittal was not based on him being this totally innocent person who committed no violence against Martin. The facts of the case have been very public for a long time. I think people are entitled to draw their own conclusions about the guy, based on these facts, and what a single-digit selection of people have to say about a very narrow definition of his actions should not really hold sway over our own agency to think for ourselves.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
And I do think that a civil society, with the power to jeopardize and imprison, must finally release its claims on persons, after acquittal or completion of sentence. We no longer brand the flesh for life, as we did in more primitive times, and the end of that practice should not have been merely symbolic.
The state does (or should) but people will still remain free to choose to forgive or not forgive the actions they perceive as wrong based on their own moral precepts.
posted by jaduncan at 9:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
The state does (or should) but people will still remain free to choose to forgive or not forgive the actions they perceive as wrong based on their own moral precepts.
posted by jaduncan at 9:28 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
I can get you a good deal on an Aaron Hernandez jersey if you want.
People treat some sports figures like role models and heroes, they don't want to cheer for murderers or hear them in the booth. Even a dog killer was a tough sell. In general I believe absolutely that we need to give people accused and convicted of crimes second chances, but if you are trying to work in a field where popularity and likeability are important killing people isn't going to be an asset.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
People treat some sports figures like role models and heroes, they don't want to cheer for murderers or hear them in the booth. Even a dog killer was a tough sell. In general I believe absolutely that we need to give people accused and convicted of crimes second chances, but if you are trying to work in a field where popularity and likeability are important killing people isn't going to be an asset.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:32 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
The only similarly polarized case I can really think of is the OJ Simpson case, which certainly involved juror harassment afterwards.
But they were black though.
I too thought of the OJ Simpson jury. But juries are usually sacrosanct and while there have been many high profile trials with controversial verdicts, the jury members are rarely targeted. That particular jury received hate for years. I've always seen that as motivated by racism.
I don't know why anyone is worried for the jury or George Zimmerman. People gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars when all they knew was he killed a black kid and was going on trial for it. He's already made the rounds and asking for apologies from Black America.
posted by Danila at 9:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
But they were black though.
I too thought of the OJ Simpson jury. But juries are usually sacrosanct and while there have been many high profile trials with controversial verdicts, the jury members are rarely targeted. That particular jury received hate for years. I've always seen that as motivated by racism.
I don't know why anyone is worried for the jury or George Zimmerman. People gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars when all they knew was he killed a black kid and was going on trial for it. He's already made the rounds and asking for apologies from Black America.
posted by Danila at 9:35 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
NYTimes reporting Federal Hate Crime Inquiry to Reopen!
posted by mistersquid at 9:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by mistersquid at 9:39 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
corb: "that I had a "duty to retreat" even from someone who was stronger, or faster, than me, or maybe two of them, no matter what was happening. "
The duty to retreat is not a duty to retreat to your death. It is a duty to retreat, if retreat is reasonably possible. If multiple attackers are chasing you and you find that they are faster than you, so you turn and shoot them, you have clearly satisfied the duty to retreat and are justified in using deadly force in any state in the union. (assuming you were in reasonable fear for your life) Now, whether it is legal for you to possess the tools of self defense in that scenario is another question entirely. A significant portion of the population in the US can't. Disproportionately minority, of course.
I see this canard a lot, but I'm not quite sure where it comes from. In most, if not all, states, you have the castle doctrine to protect you if you have to kill someone in your home. It's a bit bizarre to me that people think that the same standard should apply out on the street, where you are much more likely to have avenues of retreat and/or resolution that don't involve killing someone. You might first, for example, yell for help, and only when that proves futile proceed in ending the life of another human being.
Without a duty to retreat, it's even more trivial for an attacker to create a situation where only they can win. They just have to make sure you're the aggressor when the story gets told later.
As far as the verdict goes, given the case presented by the prosecution, I can't say that it was completely unreasonable. That said, I was not on the jury and I can thus consider more evidence than they did. I am by no means required to believe George wasn't actually guilty of manslaughter, and on balance, I think he is, but that's me.
posted by wierdo at 9:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
The duty to retreat is not a duty to retreat to your death. It is a duty to retreat, if retreat is reasonably possible. If multiple attackers are chasing you and you find that they are faster than you, so you turn and shoot them, you have clearly satisfied the duty to retreat and are justified in using deadly force in any state in the union. (assuming you were in reasonable fear for your life) Now, whether it is legal for you to possess the tools of self defense in that scenario is another question entirely. A significant portion of the population in the US can't. Disproportionately minority, of course.
I see this canard a lot, but I'm not quite sure where it comes from. In most, if not all, states, you have the castle doctrine to protect you if you have to kill someone in your home. It's a bit bizarre to me that people think that the same standard should apply out on the street, where you are much more likely to have avenues of retreat and/or resolution that don't involve killing someone. You might first, for example, yell for help, and only when that proves futile proceed in ending the life of another human being.
Without a duty to retreat, it's even more trivial for an attacker to create a situation where only they can win. They just have to make sure you're the aggressor when the story gets told later.
As far as the verdict goes, given the case presented by the prosecution, I can't say that it was completely unreasonable. That said, I was not on the jury and I can thus consider more evidence than they did. I am by no means required to believe George wasn't actually guilty of manslaughter, and on balance, I think he is, but that's me.
posted by wierdo at 9:49 PM on July 14, 2013 [18 favorites]
Lawyer: Gun that killed Trayvon will be returned to Zimmerman
posted by homunculus at 10:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 10:09 PM on July 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
David Weigel: The Night Without a Riot
Depending on how you get your news, this might have come as a surprise. "The public mind has been so poisoned," wrote Pat Buchanan last year, "that an acquittal of George Zimmerman could ignite a reaction similar to that, 20 years ago, when the Simi Valley jury acquitted the LAPD cops in the Rodney King beating case." In fringe media, like the Alex Jones network of sites, it was taken for granted that a Zimmerman acquittal would inspire a race war. The only dispute was about the scale. Certainly, nobody was saying "this could lead to one night of smashing things in Oakland."posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 PM on July 14, 2013 [17 favorites]
"With today’s social media I fully expect organized race rioting to begin in every major city to dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots of past decades," wrote retired cop/pundit Paul Huebl after the Rachel Jeantel testimony sparked a wave of distressed tweets from black users. "If you live in a large city be prepared to evacuate or put up a fight to win. You will need firearms, fire suppression equipment along with lots of food and water. Police resources will be slow and outgunned everywhere. America is about to see some combat related population control like we’ve not seen since the Civil War. Martial Law can’t be far behind complete with major efforts at gun grabbing."
That analysis was shared on Jones's Prison Planet, and it really did represent the far edge of "here comes the riot" punditry. Far more typical was the take Rush Limbaugh offered to his listeners on open line Friday. "I don't want any riots, don't misunderstand," said Limbaugh. "From the media perspective, we haven't had a good riot in this country in I don't know how long. A riot is an opportunity for the media to show how unjust and unfair, basically how sucky the country is, and there hasn't been that chance." Limbaugh walked through a couple of scenarios, including one in which "nobody cares" about the verdict and no riots broke out, but was confident that he would not be blamed for riots if they did break out. "I'll be the last guy, because that would be to credit me, because people are gonna want them. You think I'm gonna get the credit? Sharpton's gonna get that credit, or the Reverend Jackson."
Well, there weren't any riots, so nobody gets the credit. Riot-panic was rooted in a misreading of observable black opinion of the trial, in reports from Sanford and in trawls through social media. I was in Sanford last year, before Zimmerman was charged, and got to see how close the historically segregated black part of town was from downtown. More than one person there fretted about riots if Zimmerman wasn't put on trial. Once he was put on trial, the tenor of the outrage changed for good. Sanford itself was peaceful last night.
Mod note: Comment deleted. If you're aware that your rage is getting in the way of a more constructive response, maybe take a breath or two, and try again without calling people assholes, etc. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 10:48 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
What surprises me, reading about this case on my usual internet channels, is how people who are usually very suspicious of so much completely believe everything Zimmerman has said about what happened. Because I don't, I think it's extremely likely that he didn't just innocently ask Martin what he was doing, but instead grabbed him or put his hands on him in another way and Martin responded with his fists. I think that's very likely and even probable.
It's also sad to me that people seem to let their distrust of cops justify armed vigilante "justice."
posted by girlmightlive at 10:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
It's also sad to me that people seem to let their distrust of cops justify armed vigilante "justice."
posted by girlmightlive at 10:52 PM on July 14, 2013 [7 favorites]
Comment 1: And I do think that a civil society, with the power to jeopardize and imprison, must finally release its claims on persons, after acquittal or completion of sentence. We no longer brand the flesh for life, as we did in more primitive times, and the end of that practice should not have been merely symbolic.
Comment 2: Well, the great thing about living in a free and democratic society is people are going to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on a particular person, and neither you nor I nor anyone else can do anything to stop it. I always get a little weirded out by talk of what "society" is supposed to be doing.
And it's a good question. The maybe not so great thing about our free and democratic society is that our legal system focuses almost exclusively on blaming and punishing the guilty as a way of resolving conflict.
We are such fans of conflict, that even when this guy is exonerated in the eyes of the law, people earnestly make the case that he should still be blamed and punished and shunned by regular people. That this is totally normal and is one of the luxuries of living in a "free and democratic" society. Which is true. But the point might be, not that anyone should dictate how private individuals choose to treat Zimmerman in the future, but rather why do we even consider violent and ostracizing behavior as a form or resolution or "justice."
Anyway, Laura Nader (Ralph's sister) was talking about this in the early 1980's and she did a far better job than I possibly could. "Little Injustices," a must-watch documentary. The abstract reads:
posted by phaedon at 11:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Comment 2: Well, the great thing about living in a free and democratic society is people are going to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on a particular person, and neither you nor I nor anyone else can do anything to stop it. I always get a little weirded out by talk of what "society" is supposed to be doing.
And it's a good question. The maybe not so great thing about our free and democratic society is that our legal system focuses almost exclusively on blaming and punishing the guilty as a way of resolving conflict.
We are such fans of conflict, that even when this guy is exonerated in the eyes of the law, people earnestly make the case that he should still be blamed and punished and shunned by regular people. That this is totally normal and is one of the luxuries of living in a "free and democratic" society. Which is true. But the point might be, not that anyone should dictate how private individuals choose to treat Zimmerman in the future, but rather why do we even consider violent and ostracizing behavior as a form or resolution or "justice."
Anyway, Laura Nader (Ralph's sister) was talking about this in the early 1980's and she did a far better job than I possibly could. "Little Injustices," a must-watch documentary. The abstract reads:
"How does justice really work in the United States? Who has knowledge of the law, access to the legal system, and the will and power to use it? Anthropologist Laura Nader's first field trip to a Zapotec Indian village in Oaxaca, Mexico, in the late 1950s, led her to study problem-solving in the local courts [...]Ok, a basket of chilies isn't going to bring Trayvon back, then again neither is making Zimmerman's life a living hell. Which makes you wonder, on what grounds do some people feel so good talking about doing the latter.
"In this small-scale Mexican society, where most interactions were face-to-face, and anger and conflicts needed constantly to be resolved, Nader found that emphasis was on balanced solutions rather than on blaming a guilty party. We see, for instance, a courtroom scene in which the judge orders a truck driver, accused of running over a basket of chilies, to weigh the damaged chilies and reimburse the owner, while the merchant is warned to be more careful not to place his baskets in the road. Villagers, found Nader, consistently had knowledge of and access to the law, and often brought their problems to this court.
"In the 1960s, Nader returned to teach at Berkeley. In a decade of sit-ins, riots, helicopter gassings, and arrests, Nader asked why conflicts in our own society, in contrast to the Zapotec village, tend to escalate toward violence."
posted by phaedon at 11:10 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Your concern isn't sincere, just stop.
Agreed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:21 PM on July 14, 2013
Agreed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:21 PM on July 14, 2013
We are such fans of conflict, that even when this guy is exonerated in the eyes of the law, people earnestly make the case that he should still be blamed and punished and shunned by regular people.
Not to point too fine a point on this, but he wasn't exonerated of everything that happened that night; he was found not guilty of a very narrow set of actions under a narrow charge levied against him.
Adding to this, the great thing about the law is that, unless you're some kind of super Lawful Neutral type like John Goodman's character in The Big Lebowski, we can - and I think should - develop our own ideas about how the law is written and interpreted. It's what keeps democracy healthy and flourishing. So yes, he was acquitted of this charge, based on the jury's interpretation of said law. Is the jury less fallible than the rest of us? I don't think so. So why can't we disagree with the verdict, based on our interpretation of the law and the events that transpired?
And I'm not seeing anyone (here anyway) calling for setting up a tent camp in front of Zimmerman's home, so I think the gentle scolding of people angry at Zimmerman is a bit misguided.
This case, and Zimmerman's acquittal, has deeply hurt a lot of people, and telling them "your rage won't bring Martin back" is redundant.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
Not to point too fine a point on this, but he wasn't exonerated of everything that happened that night; he was found not guilty of a very narrow set of actions under a narrow charge levied against him.
Adding to this, the great thing about the law is that, unless you're some kind of super Lawful Neutral type like John Goodman's character in The Big Lebowski, we can - and I think should - develop our own ideas about how the law is written and interpreted. It's what keeps democracy healthy and flourishing. So yes, he was acquitted of this charge, based on the jury's interpretation of said law. Is the jury less fallible than the rest of us? I don't think so. So why can't we disagree with the verdict, based on our interpretation of the law and the events that transpired?
And I'm not seeing anyone (here anyway) calling for setting up a tent camp in front of Zimmerman's home, so I think the gentle scolding of people angry at Zimmerman is a bit misguided.
This case, and Zimmerman's acquittal, has deeply hurt a lot of people, and telling them "your rage won't bring Martin back" is redundant.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:22 PM on July 14, 2013 [15 favorites]
I guess in the balance of things, while jury harassment apparently is a thing that happens, it doesn't exactly register high on my list of concerns when compared to what Martin's family must be feeling right now, and "but oh I hope the jury is OK!" strikes me as a strangely obscure place to lay your sympathies.
I can do both things; feel for the family AND hope the jury is okay. Nothing is served by harassing the jury and, honestly, the idea that one ranks higher than the other - particularly when you don't have a personal relationship with one or the other - is pretty callous.
posted by crossoverman at 11:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
I can do both things; feel for the family AND hope the jury is okay. Nothing is served by harassing the jury and, honestly, the idea that one ranks higher than the other - particularly when you don't have a personal relationship with one or the other - is pretty callous.
posted by crossoverman at 11:26 PM on July 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Nothing is served by harassing the jury and, honestly, the idea that one ranks higher than the other - particularly when you don't have a personal relationship with one or the other - is pretty callous.
I think you must have misunderstood me. You'll notice I'm talking about likelihoods. Is it likely the jury is going to get harassed and besieged with death threats? Maybe, but it's a lot less likely than Martin's family being in a state of great pain right now. So that's where my concerns lay.
But regardless, prioritizing sympathies is pretty damn far from "callous".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think you must have misunderstood me. You'll notice I'm talking about likelihoods. Is it likely the jury is going to get harassed and besieged with death threats? Maybe, but it's a lot less likely than Martin's family being in a state of great pain right now. So that's where my concerns lay.
But regardless, prioritizing sympathies is pretty damn far from "callous".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:33 PM on July 14, 2013 [3 favorites]
Dear George Zimmerman, For the rest of your life you are now going to feel what its like to be a black man in America.…—Alex Fraser, 14 July 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 11:46 PM on July 14, 2013 [10 favorites]
Is the jury less fallible than the rest of us? I don't think so. So why can't we disagree with the verdict, based on our interpretation of the law and the events that transpired?
I think this question could be responded to literally. Did you sequester yourself, sit in the courtroom and watch all the testimony? Were you charged by a higher authority to discuss your findings with other members of the community and form a consensus? Were you there the night Trayvon got murdered?
Assuming the answer to these questions is no, then invoking human fallibility works both ways.
You should at least grant that six randomly selected people being given an opportunity to review all the arguments and testimony from both sides in an open forum with strict rules of evidence will come up with a better decision than you. And if you were at the scene of the crime, even better. If you don't believe that to be the case at least prima facie, then why bother calling witnesses? Why bother with due process?
So going back to the question of your thoughts and feelings. Are your thoughts and feelings on this case more accurate and actionable than the verdict the jury reached? Sure, it's totally possible, but I would suggest that you are the one that bears the burden of ponying up an explanation of how that came to be.
In the meantime, of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't think that even needs to discussed.
posted by phaedon at 11:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think this question could be responded to literally. Did you sequester yourself, sit in the courtroom and watch all the testimony? Were you charged by a higher authority to discuss your findings with other members of the community and form a consensus? Were you there the night Trayvon got murdered?
Assuming the answer to these questions is no, then invoking human fallibility works both ways.
You should at least grant that six randomly selected people being given an opportunity to review all the arguments and testimony from both sides in an open forum with strict rules of evidence will come up with a better decision than you. And if you were at the scene of the crime, even better. If you don't believe that to be the case at least prima facie, then why bother calling witnesses? Why bother with due process?
So going back to the question of your thoughts and feelings. Are your thoughts and feelings on this case more accurate and actionable than the verdict the jury reached? Sure, it's totally possible, but I would suggest that you are the one that bears the burden of ponying up an explanation of how that came to be.
In the meantime, of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't think that even needs to discussed.
posted by phaedon at 11:50 PM on July 14, 2013 [5 favorites]
You should at least grant that six randomly selected people being given an opportunity to review all the arguments and testimony from both sides in an open forum with strict rules of evidence will come up with a better decision than you.
Fully aware of how the jury works, you're still overlooking the fact that Zimmerman was not cleared of everything that went down that night - he had a narrow charge against him, and the jury sought to determine whether his actions fit the narrow definition of having committed this crime. That's what the jury was there to decide. The general public, having been able to observe evidence and hear testimony, can come up with its own thoughts on how Zimmerman behaved that night, outside the scope of the charge against him and how it is defined.
So yes, I do think it's well within the rights of the general public to be able to say "He might not have technically been guilty of this charge, based on the definition of said charge by law, but how he acted was pretty fucked up."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:58 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
Fully aware of how the jury works, you're still overlooking the fact that Zimmerman was not cleared of everything that went down that night - he had a narrow charge against him, and the jury sought to determine whether his actions fit the narrow definition of having committed this crime. That's what the jury was there to decide. The general public, having been able to observe evidence and hear testimony, can come up with its own thoughts on how Zimmerman behaved that night, outside the scope of the charge against him and how it is defined.
So yes, I do think it's well within the rights of the general public to be able to say "He might not have technically been guilty of this charge, based on the definition of said charge by law, but how he acted was pretty fucked up."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:58 PM on July 14, 2013 [20 favorites]
six randomly selected people
There was nothing random about the selection of the jurors. Zimmerman should have received a trial by a jury of his peers. Where his crimes took place, 29% of the population was African-American. In a mathematically random or "blind" selection of jurors, there should have been at least one, if not two African-Americans on that panel.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
There was nothing random about the selection of the jurors. Zimmerman should have received a trial by a jury of his peers. Where his crimes took place, 29% of the population was African-American. In a mathematically random or "blind" selection of jurors, there should have been at least one, if not two African-Americans on that panel.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
There was nothing random about the selection of the jurors. Zimmerman should have received a trial by a jury of his peers. Where his crimes took place, 29% of the population was African-American. In a mathematically random or "blind" selection of jurors, there should have been at least one, if not two African-Americans on that panel.
First, there may have been at least one - there's that juror that no one knows the actual ethnicity of, I've seen her described as "black or hispanic".
But secondly, Voir Dire means that juries are never a jury of your peers. It's a jury that the prosecution and defense both tried to stack. The amount of challenges they get "just because" is honestly shameful. But that's a bigger problem than the Martin/Zimmerman case.
posted by corb at 12:13 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
First, there may have been at least one - there's that juror that no one knows the actual ethnicity of, I've seen her described as "black or hispanic".
But secondly, Voir Dire means that juries are never a jury of your peers. It's a jury that the prosecution and defense both tried to stack. The amount of challenges they get "just because" is honestly shameful. But that's a bigger problem than the Martin/Zimmerman case.
posted by corb at 12:13 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I also have to say I do find the concerns about jury harassment and making Zimmerman's life a living hell - two things we have absolutely no indications of happening - to be truly strange. A young boy's family just watched his killer walk away from justice. The pre-emptive scolding not to get too angry about this now, be civil, behave, you won't bring Martin back with your anger you know ... ugh. I just find it so patronizing.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [34 favorites]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [34 favorites]
There was nothing random about the selection of the jurors. Zimmerman should have received a trial by a jury of his peers. Where his crimes took place, 29% of the population was African-American. In a mathematically random or "blind" selection of jurors, there should have been at least one, if not two African-Americans on that panel.
No, because jurors are selected by county. Seminole county is about 80-85% white so you'd expected 5 out of 6 jurors to be white. Which is exactly what happened. 5 white and 1 non-white juror.
posted by Justinian at 12:32 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
No, because jurors are selected by county. Seminole county is about 80-85% white so you'd expected 5 out of 6 jurors to be white. Which is exactly what happened. 5 white and 1 non-white juror.
posted by Justinian at 12:32 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
What is wrong with Florida juries?
I see what the article is getting at, but I don't think the problem is with the juries so much as with the biased and manipulative legal system of the state that so often allows the juries to be pre-set on a course that only allows a minimal set of choices in outcomes. Couple that with what appears to be a fairly consistent ineptitude in prosecution (at least in terms of gauging the likelihood of a guilty verdict) and you get verdicts that, logically, you would expect to go one way but end up at the other end of spectrum.
The Florida prosecutorial efforts seem to be constantly putting the cart before the horse (is that the right phrase to use?) when choosing a course of action in courtroom efforts. They go for the big score convictions on the high profile cases when it is often clear they should have lessened their expectations and instead, settled on what they could prove as opposed to what they would like to have proven.
On a related note and in this latest trial, I have to wonder what exactly was the mindset of the state's attorney's office. They seemed awful happy that they lost the case.
posted by lampshade at 12:43 AM on July 15, 2013
I see what the article is getting at, but I don't think the problem is with the juries so much as with the biased and manipulative legal system of the state that so often allows the juries to be pre-set on a course that only allows a minimal set of choices in outcomes. Couple that with what appears to be a fairly consistent ineptitude in prosecution (at least in terms of gauging the likelihood of a guilty verdict) and you get verdicts that, logically, you would expect to go one way but end up at the other end of spectrum.
The Florida prosecutorial efforts seem to be constantly putting the cart before the horse (is that the right phrase to use?) when choosing a course of action in courtroom efforts. They go for the big score convictions on the high profile cases when it is often clear they should have lessened their expectations and instead, settled on what they could prove as opposed to what they would like to have proven.
On a related note and in this latest trial, I have to wonder what exactly was the mindset of the state's attorney's office. They seemed awful happy that they lost the case.
posted by lampshade at 12:43 AM on July 15, 2013
"Jury of peers" means other citizens- regular people who live in the same general community. Peers means people whose jobs don't depend on putting people in jail.
No. I stand by what I said. Even if the other guy is dead, the person on trial should always get the benefit of reasonable doubt. Someone potentially getting off for a crime he committed is much less morally severe than sending a potentially innocent person to jail. In this case, there's too many unknown, too much reliance on whether or not you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, but not much evidence to contest or support it.
While I agree with this completely, it does get confusing with an affirmative defense. Nobody has to prove that Zimmerman shot the guy- it's obvious and he admitted to it. With an affirmative defense, the defendant says "yeah, I did the thing but here is why I am not criminally liable for it." He still gets the benefit of reasonable doubt in the elements of the crime which are in dispute.
Basically, it sounds kind of like the flowchart for the path to conviction is a little messed up in Florida law. There were three elements: is someone dead, is the defendant the one who did it, and did he act in a way that showed an indifference to human life. But if someone claims self-defense, it almost seems like it adds another element to the crime that the prosecution needs to prove. That a claim of self defense short circuits whether the jury can even consider the third element, when the claim of self defense should be part of their consideration of the third element.
Because something can technically be self defense, but also meet the criteria for the third element beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury does not appear to have the option to say "yeah, we believe he thought he was defending himself, but he also acted in a manner indifferent to human life, etc."
It's almost logically like a deathbed conversion. Say the magic words and all your previous actions don't count.
The jury was right; the law is what is wrong. Zimmerman shouldn't get less reasonable doubt because he invokes an affirmative defense, but he shouldn't get more either.
If I were the prosecution, I'd appeal the ruling based on the jury instructions. The way they are written does not seem in keeping with the law.
posted by gjc at 4:11 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
No. I stand by what I said. Even if the other guy is dead, the person on trial should always get the benefit of reasonable doubt. Someone potentially getting off for a crime he committed is much less morally severe than sending a potentially innocent person to jail. In this case, there's too many unknown, too much reliance on whether or not you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, but not much evidence to contest or support it.
While I agree with this completely, it does get confusing with an affirmative defense. Nobody has to prove that Zimmerman shot the guy- it's obvious and he admitted to it. With an affirmative defense, the defendant says "yeah, I did the thing but here is why I am not criminally liable for it." He still gets the benefit of reasonable doubt in the elements of the crime which are in dispute.
Basically, it sounds kind of like the flowchart for the path to conviction is a little messed up in Florida law. There were three elements: is someone dead, is the defendant the one who did it, and did he act in a way that showed an indifference to human life. But if someone claims self-defense, it almost seems like it adds another element to the crime that the prosecution needs to prove. That a claim of self defense short circuits whether the jury can even consider the third element, when the claim of self defense should be part of their consideration of the third element.
Because something can technically be self defense, but also meet the criteria for the third element beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury does not appear to have the option to say "yeah, we believe he thought he was defending himself, but he also acted in a manner indifferent to human life, etc."
It's almost logically like a deathbed conversion. Say the magic words and all your previous actions don't count.
The jury was right; the law is what is wrong. Zimmerman shouldn't get less reasonable doubt because he invokes an affirmative defense, but he shouldn't get more either.
If I were the prosecution, I'd appeal the ruling based on the jury instructions. The way they are written does not seem in keeping with the law.
posted by gjc at 4:11 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Ta-Nehisi Coates: Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice
I have seen nothing within the actual case presented by the prosecution that would allow for a stable and unvacillating belief that George Zimmerman was guilty.posted by zombieflanders at 4:23 AM on July 15, 2013 [48 favorites]
That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.
The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.
[...]
You should not be troubled that George Zimmerman "got away" with the killing of Trayvon Martin, you should be troubled that you live in a country that ensures that Trayvon Martin will happen. Trayvon Martin is happening again in Florida. Right now:In November, black youth Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old Jacksonville resident, was the only person murdered after Michael Dunn, 46, allegedly shot into the SUV Davis was inside several times after an argument about the volume of music playing.When you have society which takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging.
According to Dunn's girlfriend, Rhonda Rouer, Dunn had three rum and cokes at a wedding reception. She felt secure enough for him to drive and thought that he was a good mood. On the drive back to the hotel they were residing at, they made a pit stop at the convenience store where the murder occurred. At the Gate Station, Rouer said Dunn told her that he hated "thug music." Rouer then went inside the store to make purchases and heard several gunshots while she was still within the building.
Upon returning and seeing Dunn put his gun back into the glove compartment, Rouer asked why he had shot at the car playing music and Dunn claimed that he feared for his life and that "they threatened to kill me." The couple drove back to their hotel, and claim they did not realize anyone had died until the story appeared on the news the next day.
After killing Jordan Davis, Michael Dunn ordered a pizza.
It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended.
Maybe, but I've never heard of a place where the jury pool didn't come from the voter rolls.
posted by spaltavian
And of course, what ELSE is Florida recently and historically famous for? That's right, purging minorities from voter rolls, African Americans in particular (since in Florida, some "Hispanics," namely the rich descendants of privileged Cuban immigrants, are likely to vote with white supremacists anyway).
No one cares about the individual jurors, FFS. They've played their part in the racist spectacle, as always expected. They aren't going to be targets of anything but collective scorn and disdain.
Pilate polled the crowd too.
posted by spitbull at 4:26 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
If I were the prosecution, I'd appeal the ruling
Aside from the general rarity of the prosecution appealing an acquittal (and I'm unsure what constitutional bars may exist in Florida), watching the video of a satisfied Corey should cure you of all those expectations. I'm not exactly saying that they threw the match, but I did get the sense -- and she almost openly averred as such -- that they felt their job was to show up and try a shit case (as they saw it) for the political honor of Florida. They didn't really feel that Trayvon was murdered, even negligently, and they didn't, by extension, feel they needed to convict here. For goodness' sake, she basically said that the trial, in which Zimmerman was adjudged not guilty, "uncovered the truth".
posted by dhartung at 4:57 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
Aside from the general rarity of the prosecution appealing an acquittal (and I'm unsure what constitutional bars may exist in Florida), watching the video of a satisfied Corey should cure you of all those expectations. I'm not exactly saying that they threw the match, but I did get the sense -- and she almost openly averred as such -- that they felt their job was to show up and try a shit case (as they saw it) for the political honor of Florida. They didn't really feel that Trayvon was murdered, even negligently, and they didn't, by extension, feel they needed to convict here. For goodness' sake, she basically said that the trial, in which Zimmerman was adjudged not guilty, "uncovered the truth".
posted by dhartung at 4:57 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
corb: "that I had a "duty to retreat" even from someone who was stronger, or faster, than me, or maybe two of them, no matter what was happening. "
Would most 17 year olds know the intricacies of the self-defense laws? Would they know that even if they felt threatened and afraid of an older man who had been following them, that they must wait until they are physically attacked before they can begin to defend themselves? (and there is still no proof at all that he didn't wait until this had happened, even if he did punch Zimmerman.) I know you're talking a lot about how you would feel in Zimmerman's position, or even Trayvon's as the person being followed. I'm wondering more about how you'd feel if it was your child in Trayvon's position. Maybe you've already schooled your kids in the finer print. Do most parents?
posted by billiebee at 5:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Would most 17 year olds know the intricacies of the self-defense laws? Would they know that even if they felt threatened and afraid of an older man who had been following them, that they must wait until they are physically attacked before they can begin to defend themselves? (and there is still no proof at all that he didn't wait until this had happened, even if he did punch Zimmerman.) I know you're talking a lot about how you would feel in Zimmerman's position, or even Trayvon's as the person being followed. I'm wondering more about how you'd feel if it was your child in Trayvon's position. Maybe you've already schooled your kids in the finer print. Do most parents?
posted by billiebee at 5:10 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I found the faked photos of the jurors tasteless, and I just hope this doesn't herald the dawning of new mockery/harassment targets.
I am, honestly, wondering why you have a problem with this or would condemn it. Like killing Trayvon Martin, photoshopping pictures of Paula Deen into a jury box is perfectly legal. If we're not supposed to condemn George Zimmerman or those who would imitate him, why are you suddenly driven to indignation over those who would mock the jury? What makes Trayvon Martin an acceptable target for death but not George Zimmerman an acceptable target for social condemnation? On the flip-side, why do you think it is not ok to sympathize with Trayvon Martin and his family but do think it is ok to openly sympathize with Zimmerman and the jury?
You can't have it both ways-- you can't demand a legal system that is mostly hands-off, on the premise that "you can't legislate morality" and then turn around and claim that people shouldn't make moral judgments about otherwise-legal behavior. If you insist, despite the evidence, that everyone who acts legally is moral and should not be questioned, then you shouldn't get upset and indignant when people either act legally in ways that you find unacceptable or when people insist on changing the law to conform with their morality, not yours.
TNC is the astute observer here-- the death of Trayvon Martin isn't due to a loophole in the law that allows unfair tragedies to happen but leaves the state sadly unable to intervene because of its limited power. The law is designed specifically to nurture and encourage encounters that will allow George Zimmermans to walk free after killing someone and on some level to make heroes out of them. It's hard for me not to see this whole defense of Zimmerman as simply part of a decades-old pattern of eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens where the targets have no legal redress, where this additional step is the point to which it has escalated to the level of deadly violence.
posted by deanc at 5:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [31 favorites]
I am, honestly, wondering why you have a problem with this or would condemn it. Like killing Trayvon Martin, photoshopping pictures of Paula Deen into a jury box is perfectly legal. If we're not supposed to condemn George Zimmerman or those who would imitate him, why are you suddenly driven to indignation over those who would mock the jury? What makes Trayvon Martin an acceptable target for death but not George Zimmerman an acceptable target for social condemnation? On the flip-side, why do you think it is not ok to sympathize with Trayvon Martin and his family but do think it is ok to openly sympathize with Zimmerman and the jury?
You can't have it both ways-- you can't demand a legal system that is mostly hands-off, on the premise that "you can't legislate morality" and then turn around and claim that people shouldn't make moral judgments about otherwise-legal behavior. If you insist, despite the evidence, that everyone who acts legally is moral and should not be questioned, then you shouldn't get upset and indignant when people either act legally in ways that you find unacceptable or when people insist on changing the law to conform with their morality, not yours.
TNC is the astute observer here-- the death of Trayvon Martin isn't due to a loophole in the law that allows unfair tragedies to happen but leaves the state sadly unable to intervene because of its limited power. The law is designed specifically to nurture and encourage encounters that will allow George Zimmermans to walk free after killing someone and on some level to make heroes out of them. It's hard for me not to see this whole defense of Zimmerman as simply part of a decades-old pattern of eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens where the targets have no legal redress, where this additional step is the point to which it has escalated to the level of deadly violence.
posted by deanc at 5:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [31 favorites]
On the flip-side, why do you think it is not ok to sympathize with Trayvon Martin and his family but do think it is ok to openly sympathize with Zimmerman and the jury?
I don't think it's not okay to sympathize with anyone that you or anyone else chooses - but what I do think is that, much like with the Manning case, as a sitting president - or governor, or other authority figure - you should refuse to comment on situations that are ongoing and have not yet gone through the system. I think as president or other authority figure, you have too much influence on the disposition of cases to be able to fairly do so.
posted by corb at 5:56 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's not okay to sympathize with anyone that you or anyone else chooses - but what I do think is that, much like with the Manning case, as a sitting president - or governor, or other authority figure - you should refuse to comment on situations that are ongoing and have not yet gone through the system. I think as president or other authority figure, you have too much influence on the disposition of cases to be able to fairly do so.
posted by corb at 5:56 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
For all the reasons cited above about the history of race in this country, our first black president was wrong to say that if he had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin?
Yeah, the only milder response was for the President to pretend it hadn't happened, and how could he do that? Given the responses of various African-American posters in this thread, I would be shocked if any African-American people who heard of the shooting didn't have at least a flash of "this could have been me/my son/my brother." Just based on that, Obama's comments are practically chilly rather than a horrible misapplication of Executive Power.
For a thread full of weirdly-directed sympathy, the lack of sympathy is amazing. Well, OK, not amazing, because I have read history and been awake for most of the past 40 years, so my amazement is a bit strained. Let's say "horrifyingly characteristic,"
shall we?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:14 AM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
Yeah, the only milder response was for the President to pretend it hadn't happened, and how could he do that? Given the responses of various African-American posters in this thread, I would be shocked if any African-American people who heard of the shooting didn't have at least a flash of "this could have been me/my son/my brother." Just based on that, Obama's comments are practically chilly rather than a horrible misapplication of Executive Power.
For a thread full of weirdly-directed sympathy, the lack of sympathy is amazing. Well, OK, not amazing, because I have read history and been awake for most of the past 40 years, so my amazement is a bit strained. Let's say "horrifyingly characteristic,"
shall we?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:14 AM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
as a sitting president - or governor, or other authority figure - you should refuse to comment on situations that are ongoing and have not yet gone through the system
Apart from the fact that that's not the question that was being asked of you--they were talking about the population as a whole, not the President--you haven't complained nearly as much (by which I mean, at all) about Gov. Rick Scott saying that '[his] heart [went] out" to the Martin family, and that he called for a fair trial, which is not functionally different from what the President said.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:15 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Apart from the fact that that's not the question that was being asked of you--they were talking about the population as a whole, not the President--you haven't complained nearly as much (by which I mean, at all) about Gov. Rick Scott saying that '[his] heart [went] out" to the Martin family, and that he called for a fair trial, which is not functionally different from what the President said.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:15 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
That picture of Rick Scott... what the hell image were they trying to convey?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:23 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:23 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
as a sitting president - or governor, or other authority figure - you should refuse to comment on situations that are ongoing and have not yet gone through the system
Did you (re)read his statement linked above? He called for an investigation, which there was not going to be one of until there was a public uproar. Should a sitting official never call for an investigation of something?
posted by rtha at 6:36 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
Did you (re)read his statement linked above? He called for an investigation, which there was not going to be one of until there was a public uproar. Should a sitting official never call for an investigation of something?
posted by rtha at 6:36 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think as president or other authority figure, you have too much influence on the disposition of cases to be able to fairly do so.
Oh absolutely, which is why Zimmerman was found guilty after ten minutes of deliberation and promptly taken out back and shot like a rabid dog. When polled, the jury members unanimously said, "Obama told me to find him guilty."
Puh-lease.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
Oh absolutely, which is why Zimmerman was found guilty after ten minutes of deliberation and promptly taken out back and shot like a rabid dog. When polled, the jury members unanimously said, "Obama told me to find him guilty."
Puh-lease.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
Per the Times, Giants’ Cruz, Falcons’ White apologize for offensive reactions to Zimmerman’s acquittal
and in other reactions: Dershowitz to Newsmax: 'Prosecutorial Tyrant' Violated Zimmerman's Rights
and in other reactions: Dershowitz to Newsmax: 'Prosecutorial Tyrant' Violated Zimmerman's Rights
Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.posted by corb at 6:48 AM on July 15, 2013
“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”
Should a sitting official never call for an investigation of something?
Not if they are African-American and they call for investigation of a racially-motivated crime. That's practically Race War!
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:50 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
Not if they are African-American and they call for investigation of a racially-motivated crime. That's practically Race War!
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:50 AM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
What is horribly sad is the dead kid.
What is horribly sad is his family.
What is horribly sad is how this reenforces the message of the lack of value of the lives of black people
What is incredibly pathetic is these sad souls who believe that they are so at risk is that what is need is a gun in their hands and license to kill to put things right. Who believe they need to whip up fear in order to keep afloat their version of reality.
I spent some time in a nursing home recovering from a bone infection. I saw people divorced from reality, terrified, no escape from their own brains until death.
I suppose it is not as scary (comparing to those suffering from dementia here) to believe one needs a gun in one's hand when there is a whole structure that validates that insanity. George Zimmerman will be buoyed by it for a while, I guess. But ultimately, like all things that don't match reality, it can't be sustained, and Zimmerman and those who support him will wake up to find that they are shaking, befouled, and in a prison of their own making.
posted by angrycat at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
What is horribly sad is his family.
What is horribly sad is how this reenforces the message of the lack of value of the lives of black people
What is incredibly pathetic is these sad souls who believe that they are so at risk is that what is need is a gun in their hands and license to kill to put things right. Who believe they need to whip up fear in order to keep afloat their version of reality.
I spent some time in a nursing home recovering from a bone infection. I saw people divorced from reality, terrified, no escape from their own brains until death.
I suppose it is not as scary (comparing to those suffering from dementia here) to believe one needs a gun in one's hand when there is a whole structure that validates that insanity. George Zimmerman will be buoyed by it for a while, I guess. But ultimately, like all things that don't match reality, it can't be sustained, and Zimmerman and those who support him will wake up to find that they are shaking, befouled, and in a prison of their own making.
posted by angrycat at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Can we not have these continued links to racist/homophobic winger sites and/or "Here's some more evidence that Negroes have uncontrollable anger!" triumphalism please?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [21 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [21 favorites]
zombieflanders: "Can we not have these continued links to racist/homophobic winger sites and/or "Here's some more evidence that Negroes have uncontrollable anger!" triumphalism please?"
Team Zimmerman was so geeked up for the riots that never happened that they're desperately trying to find new angles. Now if anyone ever looks cross at Zimmerman, or if the members of the jury are ever harassed, it's evidence that the real victim here is the guy who killed an unarmed teenager.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:54 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Team Zimmerman was so geeked up for the riots that never happened that they're desperately trying to find new angles. Now if anyone ever looks cross at Zimmerman, or if the members of the jury are ever harassed, it's evidence that the real victim here is the guy who killed an unarmed teenager.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:54 AM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
I reserve the right to despise people who do things I find despicable, regardless of the legality of their actions. That doesn't mean I'm going to send them hate mail, or pelt their house with tomatoes, or stalk them or threaten them with violence...because that would make me despicable, also.
That doesn't change my deep-seated conviction that Zimmerman is a despicable man who stalked and murdered an unarmed teenager. His pitiful trumped-up justifications for getting out of his car, his smug attitude, his lack of remorse, all point to a man of profoundly stunted conscience and dangerously violent attitudes. And due to many reasons (none of which I blame the jury for) he's still a free man, and to other stunted and hate-filled people, even a hero.
Perhaps he will reform himself someday, and apologize to the Martin family and seek to prevent future similar tragedies. That would be a time to consider revising my opinion of him.
But until then, no.
posted by emjaybee at 6:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [18 favorites]
That doesn't change my deep-seated conviction that Zimmerman is a despicable man who stalked and murdered an unarmed teenager. His pitiful trumped-up justifications for getting out of his car, his smug attitude, his lack of remorse, all point to a man of profoundly stunted conscience and dangerously violent attitudes. And due to many reasons (none of which I blame the jury for) he's still a free man, and to other stunted and hate-filled people, even a hero.
Perhaps he will reform himself someday, and apologize to the Martin family and seek to prevent future similar tragedies. That would be a time to consider revising my opinion of him.
But until then, no.
posted by emjaybee at 6:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [18 favorites]
phaedon: "Ok, a basket of chilies isn't going to bring Trayvon back, then again neither is making Zimmerman's life a living hell. Which makes you wonder, on what grounds do some people feel so good talking about doing the latter."
Tell ya what. In 5-15 years, assuming I even remember who this joke of a person is then, I'll consider his debt to society paid and will say it is time to let bygones be bygones.
posted by wierdo at 6:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Tell ya what. In 5-15 years, assuming I even remember who this joke of a person is then, I'll consider his debt to society paid and will say it is time to let bygones be bygones.
posted by wierdo at 6:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Joe Scarborough (!!!): I remained confused by a political party that desperately tries to expand its minority outreach by considering the granting of citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants while refusing to even give the benefit of the doubt to a young black man gunned down for no good reason in a suburban Florida neighborhood. I just don’t get it.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
A fairly cynical part of me is willing to bet that many of the people and pundits crying about Obama's comments on the case were singin' a different tune back when GWB was sticking his oar into the Terri Schiavo case.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 7:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, metacommentary goes in metatalk.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 AM on July 15, 2013
The point I think needs to be made is that we are being called upon to ignore the suffering of the Martin family and have sympathy for the shooting victim because people are worried that such acknowledgment of his humanity and victimhood somehow violates the spirit of the law and casts doubt upon it. Similarly, it was considered verboten to recognize the humanity of slaves because it case doubt on the social hierarchy and legal system that created slavery. Today we see angry indignation about journalism that criticizes working conditions in American workplaces because this somehow delegitimizes the "rightful" place of business owners to decide how to treat their employees.
Zimmerman didn't go around patrolling his neighborhood with a gun because he was "defending the neighborhood." He did so because for him, this was the path to being seen as a paragon of masculinity on top of the social hierarchy. The offense taken by expressions of sympathy for Martin bubbled up because it reversed the entire intended effect of Zimmerman's actions: instead of being considered a hero whose actions were protected by a legally enshrined doctrine, he is viewed as a violent lunatic who got off on a technicality. But that wasn't the point of the law! Than ran counter to what ALEC was trying to do-- which was to put the armed vigilantes back on top of the social hiearchy, not to have them regarded as street thugs and common criminals!
The idea is that, if you care about freedom, you should be willing both to sacrifice the life of Trayvon Martin AND to sacrifice your empathy for him and his family, because such expressions of human decency endanger the rights and freedoms of those the law was intended to protect.
posted by deanc at 7:33 AM on July 15, 2013 [45 favorites]
Zimmerman didn't go around patrolling his neighborhood with a gun because he was "defending the neighborhood." He did so because for him, this was the path to being seen as a paragon of masculinity on top of the social hierarchy. The offense taken by expressions of sympathy for Martin bubbled up because it reversed the entire intended effect of Zimmerman's actions: instead of being considered a hero whose actions were protected by a legally enshrined doctrine, he is viewed as a violent lunatic who got off on a technicality. But that wasn't the point of the law! Than ran counter to what ALEC was trying to do-- which was to put the armed vigilantes back on top of the social hiearchy, not to have them regarded as street thugs and common criminals!
The idea is that, if you care about freedom, you should be willing both to sacrifice the life of Trayvon Martin AND to sacrifice your empathy for him and his family, because such expressions of human decency endanger the rights and freedoms of those the law was intended to protect.
posted by deanc at 7:33 AM on July 15, 2013 [45 favorites]
Fucking punks. These assholes; they always get away.
posted by TedW at 7:56 AM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by TedW at 7:56 AM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
Zimmerman didn't go around patrolling his neighborhood with a gun because he was "defending the neighborhood." He did so because for him, this was the path to being seen as a paragon of masculinity on top of the social hierarchy.
Yeah, this needs to be stressed. Because Zimmerman, for all his unappealing qualities, seems to be a guy who has not much benefited from the system. So all this acting out with guns and "patrolling" and stuff is a way to get the status (or the illusion of status) that he can't get through the channels normally available to him. So it's a double win for the system -- one disposable male does the Patriarchy's work of killing another disposable male. There is plausible deniability, and, if Zimmerman (or a copycat) does it again, "well, who could have seen that coming? It's a freak occurrence." A freak occurrence that happens a lot. And, in the meantime, the status quo is preserved for the next go 'round, and we all get admonished for being "uncivil" as our civilization erodes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:02 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Yeah, this needs to be stressed. Because Zimmerman, for all his unappealing qualities, seems to be a guy who has not much benefited from the system. So all this acting out with guns and "patrolling" and stuff is a way to get the status (or the illusion of status) that he can't get through the channels normally available to him. So it's a double win for the system -- one disposable male does the Patriarchy's work of killing another disposable male. There is plausible deniability, and, if Zimmerman (or a copycat) does it again, "well, who could have seen that coming? It's a freak occurrence." A freak occurrence that happens a lot. And, in the meantime, the status quo is preserved for the next go 'round, and we all get admonished for being "uncivil" as our civilization erodes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:02 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
let's have some major civil disobedience tho. i know it will get put in scare quotes and called riots, but that's nothing new, is it.
posted by angrycat at 8:06 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 8:06 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
There were at least a dozen peaceful protests around the country yesterday, and the local paper chooses to run this photo of a trash can fire in Oakland and an article about how poor Zimmerman's life is ruined. Abominable.
posted by desjardins at 8:18 AM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 8:18 AM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
Weigel again on the lack of riots: Who's Disappointed About the Lack of Mass Zimmerman Verdict Riots?
An act of civil disobedience that blocks traffic -- on a Sunday, not even rush hour! -- isn't an act of fury that tears a country apart. Honestly, don't the panic-mongers remember what it felt like when peaceful Tea Partiers were accused of incipient anti-government violence?posted by tonycpsu at 8:27 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
And now the National Sheriff's Association - which is the umbrella organization for the Neighborhood Watch Program (you know, the thing that Zimmerman actually wasn't affiliated with or trained by) - is weighing in on things:
posted by rtha at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [30 favorites]
“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”Those horrible sheriffs who don't know anything about law enforcement or carrying a gun safely or anything like that, expressing sympathy for Martin's family!
posted by rtha at 8:51 AM on July 15, 2013 [30 favorites]
desjardins, that front page is awful, but I was made hopeful by the Newseum's top ten page, which shows a "verdict" of people taking to the streets and being outraged... The Daily News & Boston Herald are pretty forthright. It's something anyway.
posted by mdn at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by mdn at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
So as a result of all of this can anyone say they feel safer now?
posted by shakespeherian at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
the stories of the parents who are calling into WNYC with the tales of how their children were like at the verdict news ?? WTF papa are heartbreaking
posted by angrycat at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by angrycat at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
I believe there's an ongoing case of a B&E criminal claiming SYG having shot the irate homeowner. Under the law, he should walk. Which goes to show what an ill-conceived law it is, and how little thought its authors gave it.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by five fresh fish at 8:54 AM on July 15, 2013
five fresh fish: "I believe there's an ongoing case of a B&E criminal claiming SYG having shot the irate homeowner. Under the law, he should walk. Which goes to show what an ill-conceived law it is, and how little thought its authors gave it."
Does anybody have any information on this?
posted by boo_radley at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2013
Does anybody have any information on this?
posted by boo_radley at 8:56 AM on July 15, 2013
I swear every time I think the right-wing media and right-wingers in general can't get worse, they do.
The Weigel link, and Drudge's reaction to the lack of riots is sickening.
People sympathizing with Zimmerman is sickening.
Legal issues aside, this was such a clear-cut case of who was right and who was wrong, that there was no ambiguity for me to remind myself that my political opponents just may see things differently, and are still human beings with more or less the same morals, just different interpretations on how to achieve them.
Not now. The right-wing in America has lionized someone who murdered an innocent kid. And they do this because the kid was black.
To quote Michael Gira, "You fucking people make me sick."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:02 AM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
The Weigel link, and Drudge's reaction to the lack of riots is sickening.
People sympathizing with Zimmerman is sickening.
Legal issues aside, this was such a clear-cut case of who was right and who was wrong, that there was no ambiguity for me to remind myself that my political opponents just may see things differently, and are still human beings with more or less the same morals, just different interpretations on how to achieve them.
Not now. The right-wing in America has lionized someone who murdered an innocent kid. And they do this because the kid was black.
To quote Michael Gira, "You fucking people make me sick."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:02 AM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
George Zimmerman’s relevant past
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:03 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.George Zimmerman Molestation Accusations Are Relevant
We also know that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children. The relative’s revelation is appalling but irrelevant. What most folks don’t know is that Witness No. 9 made an explosive allegation against her cousin. “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people,” she told a Sanford police officer during a telephone call in which she pleaded for anonymity. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that. I don’t want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked.” At the end of the call, Witness No. 9 urged the officer to “get character reports from other people and see if he’s ever said anything about black people, about being racist or anything like that because I guarantee you there’s somebody out there who will say it.”
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:03 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Wow, so now can Zimmerman be tried for the molestation charges?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:07 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman Molestation Accusations Are Relevant
Geeze, just when I think I have reached the bottom of my dislike for Zimmerman and the depths of this whole nasty story, the world proves that there is more mud at the bottom. Yay!
Ugh. I wish I hadn't eaten lunch.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Geeze, just when I think I have reached the bottom of my dislike for Zimmerman and the depths of this whole nasty story, the world proves that there is more mud at the bottom. Yay!
Ugh. I wish I hadn't eaten lunch.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:16 AM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
There was nothing random about the selection of the jurors. Zimmerman should have received a trial by a jury of his peers. Where his crimes took place, 29% of the population was African-American. In a mathematically random or "blind" selection of jurors, there should have been at least one, if not two African-Americans on that panel.
Well, technically, this jury selection alone doesn't prove that - i.e., it doesn't look like this deviation from the overall proportion is statistically significant (chisq, back of the envelope). But I think you're probably not wrong either - I'd be willing to bet that if you were able to look at jury selection in this area over a large number of cases (esp. serious felonies), you would be able to show a bias against black jurors.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, technically, this jury selection alone doesn't prove that - i.e., it doesn't look like this deviation from the overall proportion is statistically significant (chisq, back of the envelope). But I think you're probably not wrong either - I'd be willing to bet that if you were able to look at jury selection in this area over a large number of cases (esp. serious felonies), you would be able to show a bias against black jurors.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Huh, someone with a clear inferiority complex and obvious power fantasies may have acted on these feelings before. BIZARRE.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:26 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:26 AM on July 15, 2013
"Zimmerman's attorneys have signaled that they intend to try to discredit the witness, which most likely means running the standard issue rape defense strategy of putting the victim on trial to convince the jury she was asking for it."
Good thing they just got some practice in.
posted by billiebee at 9:29 AM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
Good thing they just got some practice in.
posted by billiebee at 9:29 AM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
More from Charlie Pierce: Our Vigilante Nation
Besides race, which it was not about because nothing is ever about race, the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman was not about guns, either. Specifically, it was not about the propaganda of the gun culture by which we are all one small step away from being devoured as a society by criminal (coughblackcough) hordes and the only thing standing between society and the abyss is an armed citizenry. Specifically, it was not about the propaganda of the gun culture that sends a George Zimmerman, a pathetic, trigger-happy wannabe cop, out there in public, free to choose to make sidewalk judgments about who belongs where and why, and to back those judgments up with lethal force if it turns out he made a mistake. Specifically, it is not about the propaganda of the gun culture that trafficks in fear and that presents as its only solution deadly weaponry. No, of course, it was not about that, either.posted by zombieflanders at 10:32 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
We live now in a vigilante culture. Our police forces are militarized and increasingly prone to rogue operations in which innocent people get killed. (Radley Balko has written an extremely important book about this phenomenon, which shows no signs of slowing down. Why in hell does the Fargo P.D. need a fking tank, anyway? Are the moose getting bigger these days?) They are being encouraged to employ what can only be called vigilante tactics under the color of official authority. You want to push the definition of the word, and there's a helluva lot to our foreign policy that edges on vigilantism, too. The national legislature has broken down utterly because of the polite vigilantism of a political minority in the Senate -- The debt ceiling was "a hostage worth taking," said Mitch McConnell, and meant it -- and because of the legislative vigilantism of an obdurate House Of Representatives.
On the streets, we are being trained paradoxically to both submit to the authority of the police, and to take the law into our own hands, if necessary, because the police cannot possibly protect us from every danger. Stand Your Ground, though it played no role in the Zimmerman trial per se, is vigilantism hallowed by legislation. That's all it is. This does nothing but produce a national schizophrenia about crime and fear and weaponry that we inevitably act out. If there really were a national background check for mental stability before you could buy a gun, I'm not sure American Society could pass one.
Lester Chambers attacked on stage after dedicating song to Trayvon Martin
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:53 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:53 AM on July 15, 2013
Boo: South Carolina, perp named Gregg Isaac.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:03 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by five fresh fish at 11:03 AM on July 15, 2013
STAND YOUR GROUND INCREASES RACIAL BIAS IN “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE” TRIALS
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:05 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:05 AM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wow, so now can Zimmerman be tried for the molestation charges?
Actually, I wonder why the prosecutor didn't go with them initially upon discovering them. One possibility though is that possibly Witness #9 did not want charges pressed - a trial on sexual assault or molestation charges can be harder on the victim than the assaulter sometimes.
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually, I wonder why the prosecutor didn't go with them initially upon discovering them. One possibility though is that possibly Witness #9 did not want charges pressed - a trial on sexual assault or molestation charges can be harder on the victim than the assaulter sometimes.
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Worst Argument: What if Trayvon Martin Wore Google Glass?
posted by modernnomad at 11:33 AM on July 15, 2013
posted by modernnomad at 11:33 AM on July 15, 2013
STAND YOUR GROUND INCREASES RACIAL BIAS IN “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE” TRIALS
I would be shocked if SYG laws had any causal effect. It seems much more likely that states that are particularly infested with white racists would both (a) be more likely to conclude that any given murder of a black person was justifiable, and (b) have this sort of cowboy-horseshit law.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would be shocked if SYG laws had any causal effect. It seems much more likely that states that are particularly infested with white racists would both (a) be more likely to conclude that any given murder of a black person was justifiable, and (b) have this sort of cowboy-horseshit law.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
a trial on sexual assault or molestation charges can be harder on the victim than the assaulter sometimes.
As we can see in this case, so can a trial on murder charges.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:49 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
As we can see in this case, so can a trial on murder charges.
posted by hydropsyche at 11:49 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
I would be shocked if SYG laws had any causal effect.
They don't, at least as of now. There isn't really any research proving that SYG or Castle Doctrine laws have done anything significant to either reduce crime or contribute to already-existent drops in crime. Quite the opposite, in fact: they've been shown to cause an increase in murder and non-negligent manslaughter.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
They don't, at least as of now. There isn't really any research proving that SYG or Castle Doctrine laws have done anything significant to either reduce crime or contribute to already-existent drops in crime. Quite the opposite, in fact: they've been shown to cause an increase in murder and non-negligent manslaughter.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
...and indeed more racist states (using the google measure on how often people there look for things like "nigger"), more racist states are more likely to have SYG laws
. logit syg googleracism
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -34.0146
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -29.079285
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -29.034942
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -29.034861
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -29.034861
Logistic regression Number of obs = 50
LR chi2(1) = 9.96
Prob > chi2 = 0.0016
Log likelihood = -29.034861 Pseudo R2 = 0.1464
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
syg | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
googleracism | 7.321684 2.671183 2.74 0.006 2.086262 12.55711
_cons | -4.925551 1.729696 -2.85 0.004 -8.315692 -1.535409
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this mostly goes away when you control for the south (using the Census south minus DE and MD, or the Confederate states + OK/KY/WV):
. logit syg south googleracism
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -34.0146
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -25.235645
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -25.178221
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -25.178059
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -25.178059
Logistic regression Number of obs = 50
LR chi2(2) = 17.67
Prob > chi2 = 0.0001
Log likelihood = -25.178059 Pseudo R2 = 0.2598
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
syg | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
south | 2.351855 .9353115 2.51 0.012 .5186779 4.185032
googleracism | 3.693225 2.995435 1.23 0.218 -2.177719 9.564169
_cons | -3.257053 1.833913 -1.78 0.076 -6.851457 .3373506
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:59 AM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites] One possibility though is that possibly Witness #9 did not want charges pressed
Isn't the victim declining to press charges a TV fantasy? Do prosecutors normally take the victim's wishes into account when deciding what charges to bring?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:59 AM on July 15, 2013
Isn't the victim declining to press charges a TV fantasy? Do prosecutors normally take the victim's wishes into account when deciding what charges to bring?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:59 AM on July 15, 2013
Isn't the victim declining to press charges a TV fantasy? Do prosecutors normally take the victim's wishes into account when deciding what charges to bring?
Well, yeah. If the only witness to an event for which there is probably no physical evidence refuses to testify, there isn't much of a case.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah. If the only witness to an event for which there is probably no physical evidence refuses to testify, there isn't much of a case.
posted by empath at 12:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, it looks like everyone who hoped no one would profit off this may be disappointed...
Zimmerman Trial Juror To Write Book (per Salon)
posted by corb at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2013
Zimmerman Trial Juror To Write Book (per Salon)
posted by corb at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2013
Witness #9's wishes probably don't enter into it. The statute of limitation is probably long past since the alleged events happened when they were kids, didn't it?
posted by Justinian at 12:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Justinian,
"In regards to child molestation specifically, there have recently been many changes to the statute of limitations nationwide. Indeed, eleven states have completely removed the limitations for child-sex crimes in the past 10 years. But after the Supreme court ruled that retroactively changing the statute of limitations (in order to prosecute crimes from long ago) was unconstitutional, many states were forced to scrap plans to do just that (Florida was one such state). The current law only allows four years from the date of the incident, but the law is likely to change soon, as there are many bills on the floor (as of 2006) to extend it to 10 years. "
four years! what a fucking disgrace
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:13 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
"In regards to child molestation specifically, there have recently been many changes to the statute of limitations nationwide. Indeed, eleven states have completely removed the limitations for child-sex crimes in the past 10 years. But after the Supreme court ruled that retroactively changing the statute of limitations (in order to prosecute crimes from long ago) was unconstitutional, many states were forced to scrap plans to do just that (Florida was one such state). The current law only allows four years from the date of the incident, but the law is likely to change soon, as there are many bills on the floor (as of 2006) to extend it to 10 years. "
four years! what a fucking disgrace
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:13 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
BTW, Future Media Personality Juror B37 is the one that claimed (among other weirdness) multiple times that she "knew there was rioting" in Sanford after the killing, despite no such thing happening. I have to imagine she characterizes the nationwide protesting as an apocalyptic racial uprising.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well, there's maybe another reason Sanford residents are concerned about rioting...and it also brings questions back to what the hell is up with that police department.
While the trial was still going on, Sanford police took a pre-emptive approach as they went door-to-door in the area warning residents about possible riots or uprisings should the former neighborhood watch member be acquitted in the murder trial.posted by corb at 12:17 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
ROU_X, nice - but how confounded are "south" and "googleracism"? If they overlap a lot it's not much of a "control", right?
posted by en forme de poire at 12:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
(It seems like the only way you could really tease apart the effects of "background" racism and SYG is if there were states that had high googleracism and wanted SYG but didn't get it. That seems impossible at first blush, but I guess it could happen if there were states that had popular support for SYG, but where SYG laws ended up being vetoed by the governor or not making it through the legislative branch or something.)
posted by en forme de poire at 12:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
corb: "Well, there's maybe another reason Sanford residents are concerned about rioting"
Your defense of someone who fabricated claims of riots before the verdict is to link to a fucking Daily Mail piece talking about riots that didn't happen after the verdict?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Your defense of someone who fabricated claims of riots before the verdict is to link to a fucking Daily Mail piece talking about riots that didn't happen after the verdict?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
I still find it pretty weird that almost everyone refers to the victim as "Trayvon," rather than by his last name as is far, far more common (and indeed, I see no one referring to Zimmerman as "George"). I am aware of the racial implications. Regardless of whether it is motivated by race or age, it's quite patronizing.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:26 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:26 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I find myself calling him by his first name cause he was a child and I don't usually call kids by their last name.
posted by agregoli at 12:28 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:28 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
People refer to the unique part of the name. "Martin" and "George" are too non-descript to be useful referents.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 12:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
ROU_X, nice - but how confounded are "south" and "googleracism"? If they overlap a lot it's not much of a "control", right?
Some. I threw away the dataset when I was done so I can't run the correlation but I'd be surprised if it's over 0.5; there are a lot of racist nonsouth states, and some southern states were surprisingly low. Glancing at it, it didn't look problematically collinear.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Some. I threw away the dataset when I was done so I can't run the correlation but I'd be surprised if it's over 0.5; there are a lot of racist nonsouth states, and some southern states were surprisingly low. Glancing at it, it didn't look problematically collinear.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Admittedly, I've made a point of referring to Zimmerman as 'George,' because I can't think of him as anything but as a clueless kid.
Trayvon is just too cool a name to not use it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013
Trayvon is just too cool a name to not use it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013
Your response to someone who fabricated claims of riots before the verdict is to link to a fucking Daily Mail piece talking about riots that didn't happen after the verdict?
Apologies if my sarcasm didn't come across clearly. What I was trying to suggest is that police going door to door to every door in Sanford (presumably including this woman's family and friends) while the trial was ongoing to warn about riots if there was an acquittal was not only an incredibly unethical thing to do, but it may have had a subconscious influencing affect on people's beliefs.
It seems overall that the only riots which took place happened in Oakland, though - there was another (violent) one last night. But that is likely due more to existing tensions in Oakland than to anything specific about the trial itself.
posted by corb at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Apologies if my sarcasm didn't come across clearly. What I was trying to suggest is that police going door to door to every door in Sanford (presumably including this woman's family and friends) while the trial was ongoing to warn about riots if there was an acquittal was not only an incredibly unethical thing to do, but it may have had a subconscious influencing affect on people's beliefs.
It seems overall that the only riots which took place happened in Oakland, though - there was another (violent) one last night. But that is likely due more to existing tensions in Oakland than to anything specific about the trial itself.
posted by corb at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
why the fuck are we talking about riots
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:33 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:33 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I still find it pretty weird that almost everyone refers to the victim as "Trayvon," rather than by his last name as is far, far more common (and indeed, I see no one referring to Zimmerman as "George"). I am aware of the racial implications. Regardless of whether it is motivated by race or age, it's quite patronizing.
"Martin" appears on this page 339 times. "Trayvon" only 183.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:35 PM on July 15, 2013
"Martin" appears on this page 339 times. "Trayvon" only 183.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:35 PM on July 15, 2013
because corb's other talking points have been shut down
posted by angrycat at 12:35 PM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:35 PM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
Gotta fill the 24 hour news cycle with something.
There's been a lot of discussion about federal charges on the news (and here) but I don't see how that could work. It would be a lot harder to prove a hate crimes charge than a manslaughter charge and prosecutors failed even at that. Sure maybe you get better prosecutors next time but proving a hate crime is a really high bar.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's been a lot of discussion about federal charges on the news (and here) but I don't see how that could work. It would be a lot harder to prove a hate crimes charge than a manslaughter charge and prosecutors failed even at that. Sure maybe you get better prosecutors next time but proving a hate crime is a really high bar.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I agree that the federal civil rights charges are a long shot, and they feed into the states' rights mentality of the assholes who are celebrating Zimmerman's acquittal. Better to devote resources to fighting the terrible self-defense laws at the state level for the next time this happens, and let the DOJ focus on other real threats to civil rights, like the whack-a-mole game of preserving voting rights in the wake of the Shelby County decision.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on July 15, 2013
"Martin" and "George" are too non-descript to be useful referents.
That's ridiculous. Plenty of people have nondescript names, but the media/world at large use them anyway.
"Martin" appears on this page 339 times. "Trayvon" only 183.
Sorry, I should have been clear that I wasn't singling out MetaFilter here. I mean everywhere, it seems like his first name is at least as common if not more so than his last. Yes he was a kid, but not, like, a toddler. Just seems unusual.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:41 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's ridiculous. Plenty of people have nondescript names, but the media/world at large use them anyway.
"Martin" appears on this page 339 times. "Trayvon" only 183.
Sorry, I should have been clear that I wasn't singling out MetaFilter here. I mean everywhere, it seems like his first name is at least as common if not more so than his last. Yes he was a kid, but not, like, a toddler. Just seems unusual.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:41 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I haven't followed this story outside of the NYT article I read today on the verdict, and a lot of this thread. It seems weird how much attention is on race, when race seems like such an irrelevant issue to GZ's guilt or innocence.
The jury decision seems completely justified given the evidence presented. There is indeed a reasonable doubt to self-defense given the evidence presented. See this New York Times summary of the key disputes in the trial.
Regardless of whether TM was racially profiled, or even if GZ started the fight by randomly sucker-punching TM (a claim which no one made):
- there were grass stains on TM's knees and on GZ's back.
- there were injuries to GZ's face and head and no injuries on TM except the gunshot wound and knuckle abrasions.
- a witness to the fight, John Good, describes a man fitting TM's appearance straddling a man fitting GZs appearance.
- a neighbor's 911 call features a panicked man screaming for help in the background for something like a minute before the gunshot, which given the above evidence, suggests that man was GZ.
So regardless if GZ started the fight (unknown), and regardless if GZ was armed, and regardless if GZ was over-estimating the damage he was taking, this suggests there was continued violence against him long after he was clearly trying to bow out of the fight. He wasn't fighting back, he was saying "stop" and the violence wasn't stopping.
Can we say this is what happened for sure? Nope. Can we say this leaves easy room for reasonable doubt? Yes.
Unless of course, the NYT piece is leaving out crucial pieces of evidence (possible), but in 900 comments here I've seen very little evidence discussed. Just lots and lots and lots of emotional talk about race, a vaguely broken criminal justice system, and GZ's obvious guilt.
posted by dgaicun at 12:48 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
The jury decision seems completely justified given the evidence presented. There is indeed a reasonable doubt to self-defense given the evidence presented. See this New York Times summary of the key disputes in the trial.
Regardless of whether TM was racially profiled, or even if GZ started the fight by randomly sucker-punching TM (a claim which no one made):
- there were grass stains on TM's knees and on GZ's back.
- there were injuries to GZ's face and head and no injuries on TM except the gunshot wound and knuckle abrasions.
- a witness to the fight, John Good, describes a man fitting TM's appearance straddling a man fitting GZs appearance.
- a neighbor's 911 call features a panicked man screaming for help in the background for something like a minute before the gunshot, which given the above evidence, suggests that man was GZ.
So regardless if GZ started the fight (unknown), and regardless if GZ was armed, and regardless if GZ was over-estimating the damage he was taking, this suggests there was continued violence against him long after he was clearly trying to bow out of the fight. He wasn't fighting back, he was saying "stop" and the violence wasn't stopping.
Can we say this is what happened for sure? Nope. Can we say this leaves easy room for reasonable doubt? Yes.
Unless of course, the NYT piece is leaving out crucial pieces of evidence (possible), but in 900 comments here I've seen very little evidence discussed. Just lots and lots and lots of emotional talk about race, a vaguely broken criminal justice system, and GZ's obvious guilt.
posted by dgaicun at 12:48 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
"Martin" appears on this page 339 times. "Trayvon" only 183.
No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
It seems weird how much attention is on race,
Hi. Welcome to the United States of America. You must be new here.
posted by rtha at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Hi. Welcome to the United States of America. You must be new here.
posted by rtha at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Anyone interested in statistics of SYG in Fl, Tampa Bay Times has a database, and even though in mixed race SYG cases more whites were granted immunity than blacks, Tampa Bay Times found no racial bias in the cases.
Race plays complex role in Florida's 'stand your ground' law
posted by snaparapans at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2013
Race plays complex role in Florida's 'stand your ground' law
posted by snaparapans at 12:54 PM on July 15, 2013
dgaicun: "I haven't followed this story outside of the NYT article I read today on the verdict, and a lot of this thread. It seems weird how much attention is on race, when race seems like such an irrelevant issue to GZ's guilt or innocence."
One does not need to believe the jury arrived at the wrong verdict based on the letter of the law and the instructions they were given to think that the race of the victim was a major factor, and that justice was not served. Some people (I count myself among them) think the self-defense law itself is an unjust law, and that, even if it were applied in a racially-equitable manner (which it is not) it's an abomination that essentially allows someone to start a fight and then shoot and kill someone if they're losing, provided there are no witnesses.
The statistics (cited above) are clear on the fact that self-defense claims are more successful if the victim is black than if the victim is white. That in and of itself is enough to make a discussion of race in the wake of this verdict relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
One does not need to believe the jury arrived at the wrong verdict based on the letter of the law and the instructions they were given to think that the race of the victim was a major factor, and that justice was not served. Some people (I count myself among them) think the self-defense law itself is an unjust law, and that, even if it were applied in a racially-equitable manner (which it is not) it's an abomination that essentially allows someone to start a fight and then shoot and kill someone if they're losing, provided there are no witnesses.
The statistics (cited above) are clear on the fact that self-defense claims are more successful if the victim is black than if the victim is white. That in and of itself is enough to make a discussion of race in the wake of this verdict relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
Or, to be more succinct about it -- it's not that these jurors were biased in acquitting someone who shot an unarmed black man, it's that, statistically, they would be unlikely to do the same if the victim were white. Ergo, race is relevant.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
It seems weird how much attention is on race, when race seems like such an irrelevant issue to GZ's guilt or innocence.
Are you not from the US?
a vaguely broken criminal justice system
Vaguely?
and GZ's obvious guilt.
[citation needed]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013
Are you not from the US?
a vaguely broken criminal justice system
Vaguely?
and GZ's obvious guilt.
[citation needed]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013
dgaicun,
I can only conclude that when someone comes into here and distorts facts and avers things that are not true, in the direction of making Zimmerman look like a poor innocent individual after he intentionally shot and killed a minor, that they have some sort of axe to grind.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013
I can only conclude that when someone comes into here and distorts facts and avers things that are not true, in the direction of making Zimmerman look like a poor innocent individual after he intentionally shot and killed a minor, that they have some sort of axe to grind.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:58 PM on July 15, 2013
there were injuries to GZ's face and head and no injuries on TM except the gunshot wound and knuckle abrasions.
Other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:59 PM on July 15, 2013 [18 favorites]
Other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:59 PM on July 15, 2013 [18 favorites]
It seems weird how much attention is on race, when race seems like such an irrelevant issue to GZ's guilt or innocence.
Because it race played a part in Trayvon Martin's death. It's terrible that George is on trial, but he could have avoided that by staying in the goddamn car and not playing cowboy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
Because it race played a part in Trayvon Martin's death. It's terrible that George is on trial, but he could have avoided that by staying in the goddamn car and not playing cowboy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
lots and lots and lots of emotional talk about race
There's been substantive discussion of the role racism plays in US criminal justice in general and this case in particular.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
There's been substantive discussion of the role racism plays in US criminal justice in general and this case in particular.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Remember, folks, the real problem in America is not laws applied in a racially-biased manner, it's the pain and suffering caused by people who talk about the fact that laws are applied in a racially-biased manner.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
Anyone interested in statistics of SYG in Fl, Tampa Bay Times has a database, and even though in mixed race SYG cases more whites were granted immunity than blacks, Tampa Bay Times found no racial bias in the cases.
We went over this in one of the other threads about this case, but that's not entirely accurate. The Times actually pointed out that their data doesn't disprove bias, either:
posted by zombieflanders at 1:05 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
We went over this in one of the other threads about this case, but that's not entirely accurate. The Times actually pointed out that their data doesn't disprove bias, either:
The analysis, however, is supported by numerous studies showing disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system. Studies have found that all-white juries are more likely to convict black defendants. Someone who murders a white person is more likely to get the death penalty than someone who kills a black person.In addition, there was this Urban Institute study concerning the rulings on "stand your ground" cases that supported the idea of increased racial disparities due to SYG laws.
Adora Obi Nweze, state president of the NAACP, said she was not surprised that people claiming "stand your ground'' escaped penalty more often when the victim was black. But she sharply questioned whether "stand your ground'' really helps black defendants.
"It's very difficult to isolate the data on one law,'' she said, "when we have so many laws where blacks are disproportionately not released, not given the kind of equity you want in justice."
posted by zombieflanders at 1:05 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
sio42,
Some people desperately want to believe that George Zimmerman is an innocent man who justifiably shot and killed a thug that attacked him and threatened his life.
I do not know what their motivations are for believing this, but my suspicions and guesses are not charitable.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:11 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Some people desperately want to believe that George Zimmerman is an innocent man who justifiably shot and killed a thug that attacked him and threatened his life.
I do not know what their motivations are for believing this, but my suspicions and guesses are not charitable.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:11 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Snaparapans: Tampa Bay Times found no racial bias in the cases.
'A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.
"I don't think judges or prosecutors or whoever works in the field of criminal justice is consciously saying black life is worth less than that of other ethnicities,'' said Kareem Jordan, a criminologist at the University of Central Florida. "But at the end of the day, it could be something that's subconscious going on if you look at how the media depicts black life.'''
I guess we read that differently.
posted by billiebee at 1:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
'A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.
"I don't think judges or prosecutors or whoever works in the field of criminal justice is consciously saying black life is worth less than that of other ethnicities,'' said Kareem Jordan, a criminologist at the University of Central Florida. "But at the end of the day, it could be something that's subconscious going on if you look at how the media depicts black life.'''
I guess we read that differently.
posted by billiebee at 1:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Some people desperately want to believe that George Zimmerman is an innocent man who justifiably shot and killed a thug that attacked him and threatened his life.
Through this thread (and the previous ones), it's become clear to me that the people who identify more with Zimmerman do so at least in part because the story, as they see it, starts with Martin allegedly leaping out and attacking Zimmerman.
It doesn't start when Zimmerman follows him from his car; it doesn't start when Zimmerman gets out of his car. But that's where it begins for me, and that's why I can't help but see myself in Martin's shoes.
posted by rtha at 1:15 PM on July 15, 2013 [24 favorites]
Through this thread (and the previous ones), it's become clear to me that the people who identify more with Zimmerman do so at least in part because the story, as they see it, starts with Martin allegedly leaping out and attacking Zimmerman.
It doesn't start when Zimmerman follows him from his car; it doesn't start when Zimmerman gets out of his car. But that's where it begins for me, and that's why I can't help but see myself in Martin's shoes.
posted by rtha at 1:15 PM on July 15, 2013 [24 favorites]
Yes zombieflanders, nothing conclusive, but the Tampa Bay Study is a great resource to look at SYG laws, imo. Those laws are quite poplular across the boards.
The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:
In fact the quote of Adoda Obi Nweze may have been in response this:
posted by snaparapans at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2013
The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:
In fact the quote of Adoda Obi Nweze may have been in response this:
"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''And do not get me wrong here, there is unquestionably racial bias in the US justice system, plenty of it to provoke outrage on a daily basis. Just not so clear a pattern in FL SYG tampa bay study.
posted by snaparapans at 1:20 PM on July 15, 2013
billiebee: I guess you stopped reading after that statistic. The title of the article gives you a hint as to the findings...
posted by snaparapans at 1:22 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 1:22 PM on July 15, 2013
In the end, the true problem with SYG laws is that, repeated protestations to the contrary or their perceived popularity, they do not actually do what they were enacted to do (reduce violent crime), nor do they actually confer protection to the populace as a whole. If anything, they have been proven to increase crime and take away the protection of wide swaths of people. Any racial disparities that exist (and that is arguable either way according to the Times study) would be a rotten cherry on the shit sundae that is SYG.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:23 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 1:23 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
And the jury instructions don't even mention anything except the moment where GZ supposedly feared for his life, nothing at all about how he could have been perceived as the threatening due to the previous 10 minutes.
See previous thread if you're interested in that. Arguing over how "provocation" would be applied in this case formed a big chunk of the latter part of the thread. That and the yelling.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 PM on July 15, 2013
See previous thread if you're interested in that. Arguing over how "provocation" would be applied in this case formed a big chunk of the latter part of the thread. That and the yelling.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 PM on July 15, 2013
I can only conclude that when someone comes into here and distorts facts and avers things that are not true, in the direction of making Zimmerman look like a poor innocent individual after he intentionally shot and killed a minor, that they have some sort of axe to grind.
Oh FFS. Do you really have THAT poor an understanding of the most basic principle of the US justice system? George Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. The state has to prove his guilt. There is not and never has been (as was obvious from the very start, when the original DA made what has proven to be a very sound decision not to prosecute an unprovable case) sufficient evidence to prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Dgaicun wasn't "making Zimmerman look like a poor innocent individual" s/he was pointing out that the evidence of his guilt is simply insufficient to make a convincing case in a court of law. That fact has been self evident to anyone who is willing to actually examine the evidence and the law from the time the story first broke into the newspapers. And all of this is utterly independent of whether George Zimmerman is a racist asshole or a sweetnatured angel and whether Trayvon Martin was a wannabe gangster or the saintliest being who ever walked the earth.
Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had a right to use lethal force to defend his life. Under Florida law, the prosecution has to prove either that he would not have had a reasonable fear for his life at the time he discharged his weapon, OR that he had done something which would have invalidated his right to self defense at that time (i.e., that he was in the midst of committing a felony). There is no evidence, at all, that he was in the midst of committing a felony at the time that he discharged the weapon (which is why we have all this absurd nonsense about him "disobeying" the "orders" of the 911 dispatcher--as if anyone on Metafilter would normally argue for a second that 911 dispatchers have legal authority over us!). It is perfectly legal to think that passersby on the street might be up to no good and it is perfectly legal to think so for stupid, offensive and wholly inadequate reasons and it is perfectly legal to go up to them in a public place and ask them what their business is. No one would argue for a second that George Zimmerman had voided his right to self defense were ALL the other facts in this case identical, but there was, say, video footage showing him approaching Martin, speaking to Martin, and Martin pulling a gun on him. So, clearly, nothing that preceded the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin had invalidated Zimmerman's right, under Florida law, to use lethal force to defend himself if he felt to be in fear for his life.
So ALL the blah blah blah about what preceded the actual physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman is, in fact, irrelevant to the question of Zimmerman's criminal guilt (it may well become relevant in a civil suit, but that's another matter). George Zimmerman can be as much or as little of the eeeeevil racist monster most of you want to believe him to be (short of actually forming a predetermined plan to go out and shoot the first black guy he saw--something that the state did not try to prove, that does not fit the available facts and for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence) without that having anything to do with what the jury was actually trying to determine. The only issue actually before the jury was whether the state could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time George Zimmerman fired his gun he was not, in fact, defending himself against what he took to be a credible threat. Once you have zero evidence as to the question of who initiated the physical altercation between the two and also have eyewitness testimony to the effect that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, and zero physical evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account the state's case simply collapses. NOT because we automatically have to believe that eyewitness or Zimmerman's story, but because we have precisely zero countervailing evidence. We cannot say that there is not a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman's version may not be true.
posted by yoink at 1:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
Oh FFS. Do you really have THAT poor an understanding of the most basic principle of the US justice system? George Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. The state has to prove his guilt. There is not and never has been (as was obvious from the very start, when the original DA made what has proven to be a very sound decision not to prosecute an unprovable case) sufficient evidence to prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Dgaicun wasn't "making Zimmerman look like a poor innocent individual" s/he was pointing out that the evidence of his guilt is simply insufficient to make a convincing case in a court of law. That fact has been self evident to anyone who is willing to actually examine the evidence and the law from the time the story first broke into the newspapers. And all of this is utterly independent of whether George Zimmerman is a racist asshole or a sweetnatured angel and whether Trayvon Martin was a wannabe gangster or the saintliest being who ever walked the earth.
Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had a right to use lethal force to defend his life. Under Florida law, the prosecution has to prove either that he would not have had a reasonable fear for his life at the time he discharged his weapon, OR that he had done something which would have invalidated his right to self defense at that time (i.e., that he was in the midst of committing a felony). There is no evidence, at all, that he was in the midst of committing a felony at the time that he discharged the weapon (which is why we have all this absurd nonsense about him "disobeying" the "orders" of the 911 dispatcher--as if anyone on Metafilter would normally argue for a second that 911 dispatchers have legal authority over us!). It is perfectly legal to think that passersby on the street might be up to no good and it is perfectly legal to think so for stupid, offensive and wholly inadequate reasons and it is perfectly legal to go up to them in a public place and ask them what their business is. No one would argue for a second that George Zimmerman had voided his right to self defense were ALL the other facts in this case identical, but there was, say, video footage showing him approaching Martin, speaking to Martin, and Martin pulling a gun on him. So, clearly, nothing that preceded the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin had invalidated Zimmerman's right, under Florida law, to use lethal force to defend himself if he felt to be in fear for his life.
So ALL the blah blah blah about what preceded the actual physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman is, in fact, irrelevant to the question of Zimmerman's criminal guilt (it may well become relevant in a civil suit, but that's another matter). George Zimmerman can be as much or as little of the eeeeevil racist monster most of you want to believe him to be (short of actually forming a predetermined plan to go out and shoot the first black guy he saw--something that the state did not try to prove, that does not fit the available facts and for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence) without that having anything to do with what the jury was actually trying to determine. The only issue actually before the jury was whether the state could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time George Zimmerman fired his gun he was not, in fact, defending himself against what he took to be a credible threat. Once you have zero evidence as to the question of who initiated the physical altercation between the two and also have eyewitness testimony to the effect that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, and zero physical evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account the state's case simply collapses. NOT because we automatically have to believe that eyewitness or Zimmerman's story, but because we have precisely zero countervailing evidence. We cannot say that there is not a reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman's version may not be true.
posted by yoink at 1:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
I've repeated mentioned that George should have stayed in the car and that his unwillingness to do so puts the responsibility on him for Trayvon's death.
This view comes from volunteer training in disaster preparedness where it was hammered into us that we are not professionals, we're there to assist professional on the scene or until they arrive. We are not give any sort of professional help, because we haven't bee probably trained. For instance, we're not supposed to move someone unless the situation is life threatening. We're not supposed to give an injured person anything except water, unless it's life threatening.
And we're volunteers without guns. So when I hear that a volunteer with a gun willfully ignores professional advice (the dispatcher advising him to stay in the car), there's no question in my mind who's at fault when someone winds up dead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:26 PM on July 15, 2013 [25 favorites]
This view comes from volunteer training in disaster preparedness where it was hammered into us that we are not professionals, we're there to assist professional on the scene or until they arrive. We are not give any sort of professional help, because we haven't bee probably trained. For instance, we're not supposed to move someone unless the situation is life threatening. We're not supposed to give an injured person anything except water, unless it's life threatening.
And we're volunteers without guns. So when I hear that a volunteer with a gun willfully ignores professional advice (the dispatcher advising him to stay in the car), there's no question in my mind who's at fault when someone winds up dead.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:26 PM on July 15, 2013 [25 favorites]
I personally don't care a whole hell of a lot if it was the law's fault or the prosecution's fault or the judge's fault or the jury's fault. What you got is a dead kid for no good reason, a country where race always matters, and a clearly stupid, dangerous man being worshipped as an avatar of self-reliance. Okay, I have an ax to grind about all that shit, I guess.
posted by angrycat at 1:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 1:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
The issue of the burden of proof in this case something that isn't really being argued anymore, yoink. The problematic part of dgaicun's comment (apart from threadshitting for that reason) was that they went on to (a) make racism in the law and justice systems out to be not a big deal that people were overreacting to, and (b) lie about the frequency of people claiming Zimmerman's "obvious guilt."
posted by zombieflanders at 1:31 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by zombieflanders at 1:31 PM on July 15, 2013
yes, zombieflanders it is clear that SYG laws appear to correlate with more deaths, including deaths caused by police.
posted by snaparapans at 1:32 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 1:32 PM on July 15, 2013
Oh FFS. Do you really have THAT poor an understanding of the most basic principle of the US justice system?
Do you always misapply and misread what other people say?
George Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. The state has to prove his guilt.
No shit. I'm talking not about the court case that has been settled, but what is going on in this thread. Many people have come in here and made up bullshit, saying things that are patently untrue, or distortions of what actually happened. Things like, Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on the ground, or that Zimmerman continually tried to get away but that Martin kept attacking him.
There is actually zero evidence for such a conclusion so I wonder why the fuck people come to it, unless they want to believe that Zimmerman is good and Martin is bad.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:34 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
Do you always misapply and misread what other people say?
George Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. The state has to prove his guilt.
No shit. I'm talking not about the court case that has been settled, but what is going on in this thread. Many people have come in here and made up bullshit, saying things that are patently untrue, or distortions of what actually happened. Things like, Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on the ground, or that Zimmerman continually tried to get away but that Martin kept attacking him.
There is actually zero evidence for such a conclusion so I wonder why the fuck people come to it, unless they want to believe that Zimmerman is good and Martin is bad.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:34 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
It doesn't start when Zimmerman follows him from his car; it doesn't start when Zimmerman gets out of his car.
I would go back farther, to 2009 when George Zimmerman had with problems with Big Boi, the pit bull. Apparently, it was that incident that prompted him to buy a gun at the end of that year. From that point, a long chain of events lead up to the incident with Trayvon Martin.
No, there is no super-duper direct link between what happened with the two incidents other than the gun purchase. However, and only symbolically, when I examine how I feel about a particular tragic outcome, seeing some sort of through line helps me understand. Of course, that through line is meaningless in the larger picture, but it always gives me pause to think how a simple incident that causes a person to do a particular thing, ends up in a horrible situation such as what happened on February 26, 2012.
In the end, a young man who did not deserve to be dead is exactly that. All the fancy timelines with their detailed descriptions does not take away the simple fact that had George Zimmerman walked the other way or even maybe had Trayvon Marting chatted with the store clerk for another 5 minutes, Trayvon might still be alive and this thread-zilla would not exist.
It's weird, I know.....but I always think about this stuff.
rip Trayvon Martin
posted by lampshade at 1:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
I would go back farther, to 2009 when George Zimmerman had with problems with Big Boi, the pit bull. Apparently, it was that incident that prompted him to buy a gun at the end of that year. From that point, a long chain of events lead up to the incident with Trayvon Martin.
No, there is no super-duper direct link between what happened with the two incidents other than the gun purchase. However, and only symbolically, when I examine how I feel about a particular tragic outcome, seeing some sort of through line helps me understand. Of course, that through line is meaningless in the larger picture, but it always gives me pause to think how a simple incident that causes a person to do a particular thing, ends up in a horrible situation such as what happened on February 26, 2012.
In the end, a young man who did not deserve to be dead is exactly that. All the fancy timelines with their detailed descriptions does not take away the simple fact that had George Zimmerman walked the other way or even maybe had Trayvon Marting chatted with the store clerk for another 5 minutes, Trayvon might still be alive and this thread-zilla would not exist.
It's weird, I know.....but I always think about this stuff.
rip Trayvon Martin
posted by lampshade at 1:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
At a certain point, obsessively reading the news and opinions about this horrible case begins to make everything seem like it's being written by Onion staffers. For the record, the following are authentic Onion stories and are intended as satire.
• Zimmerman Found Not Guilty, Technically, But C’mon
• Defense: ‘George Zimmerman Is, You Know, He’s A Decent Enough Guy’
• "I Think People Could Have Been A Little More Sympathetic About My Broken Nose" By George Zimmerman
• Nation Throws Hands Up, Tells Black Teenagers To Do Their Best Out There
• George Zimmerman Not Going To Let One Bad Experience Deter Him From Neighborhood Watch Responsibilities
And now back to the actual words of reporters, pundits, lawyers, the defendant, and his supporters. (God help us alll.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [13 favorites]
• Zimmerman Found Not Guilty, Technically, But C’mon
• Defense: ‘George Zimmerman Is, You Know, He’s A Decent Enough Guy’
• "I Think People Could Have Been A Little More Sympathetic About My Broken Nose" By George Zimmerman
• Nation Throws Hands Up, Tells Black Teenagers To Do Their Best Out There
• George Zimmerman Not Going To Let One Bad Experience Deter Him From Neighborhood Watch Responsibilities
And now back to the actual words of reporters, pundits, lawyers, the defendant, and his supporters. (God help us alll.)
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [13 favorites]
When I see pictures of GZ's injuries... This is why I have such a hard time understanding what has happened. Is that supposed to be a picture of a man who was in fear of his life? He looks better than my friend who was beaten up did even two weeks later. Maybe the jurors had never seen what injuries from an assault look like in real life.
To me it looked like every teenager fight I ever saw. Punch, brief wrestle, to the ground, more ineffective swings. They presented it like it was lawless combat to the death in the Octogon. It looked more like teenagers at the bus stop to me.
The whole MMA framing drove me crazy, including the testimony rating Zimmerman's fighting skills. Oh, he's a .5? What's 10? Brock Lesnar? Yes, Zimmerman is a .5 compared to Brock Lesnar but he wasn't fighting Brock Lesnar, he was an adult former bouncer with a year of training in a fistfight with a skinny teenager that wasn't even trained up to be a .5.
He thought he was being murdered by a dangerous criminal, and I don't believe that was a reasonable belief.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
To me it looked like every teenager fight I ever saw. Punch, brief wrestle, to the ground, more ineffective swings. They presented it like it was lawless combat to the death in the Octogon. It looked more like teenagers at the bus stop to me.
The whole MMA framing drove me crazy, including the testimony rating Zimmerman's fighting skills. Oh, he's a .5? What's 10? Brock Lesnar? Yes, Zimmerman is a .5 compared to Brock Lesnar but he wasn't fighting Brock Lesnar, he was an adult former bouncer with a year of training in a fistfight with a skinny teenager that wasn't even trained up to be a .5.
He thought he was being murdered by a dangerous criminal, and I don't believe that was a reasonable belief.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
David Simon's thoughts:
Trayvon
13 Jul
You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [20 favorites]
Trayvon
13 Jul
You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [20 favorites]
Reading over the timeline on Wikipedia, one things stands out:
After Trayvon was shot, neither George Zimmerman or the first officer on the scene attempt CPR. That's just crazy.
GZ went through the legalities of getting a gun and a permit for it. I wonder if he bothered to learn CPR or first aid.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
After Trayvon was shot, neither George Zimmerman or the first officer on the scene attempt CPR. That's just crazy.
GZ went through the legalities of getting a gun and a permit for it. I wonder if he bothered to learn CPR or first aid.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
Drinky Die: " He thought he was being murdered by a dangerous criminal, and I don't believe that was a reasonable belief."
Well, the precise problem with the Florida self-defense law is that the "reasonable doubt" comes into play when assessing whether he could have thought he was being murdered, not whether the thought that he could be murdered was reasonable or unreasonable. Orwell warned us about thoughtcrime, but what we have here is kind of a "thought get-out-of-jail-free card", which I would argue is just as dangerous, because as long as you can plausibly convince people you're a paranoid freak, you can pretty much just walk around murdering people.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:12 PM on July 15, 2013
Well, the precise problem with the Florida self-defense law is that the "reasonable doubt" comes into play when assessing whether he could have thought he was being murdered, not whether the thought that he could be murdered was reasonable or unreasonable. Orwell warned us about thoughtcrime, but what we have here is kind of a "thought get-out-of-jail-free card", which I would argue is just as dangerous, because as long as you can plausibly convince people you're a paranoid freak, you can pretty much just walk around murdering people.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:12 PM on July 15, 2013
thank you, longdaysjourney, for posting that, and thanks to David Simon for another piece of superlative writing
posted by angrycat at 2:18 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by angrycat at 2:18 PM on July 15, 2013
tonycpsu: Self-defense law is the same through out the US, save for Ohio. Florida is not unique.
posted by snaparapans at 2:19 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 2:19 PM on July 15, 2013
Just look at how polite these armed fellows are to each other...
That's when Adamany began emptying the magazine of his gun, shooting out the window with his left hand while driving and using the phone with his right hand, he told police.posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:21 PM on July 15, 2013
Mod note: A couple comments removed. This has been a long thread already on the tail of several previous, also long, threads; please approach it with a little more caution to address specific things being talked about currently or citing clearly specific earlier comments if they need talking about instead of jumping in with broadly dismissive comments about what you think People are saying.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
snaparapans: "tonycpsu: Self-defense law is the same through out the US, save for Ohio. Florida is not unique."
Actually, it is unique.
Actually, it is unique.
Florida has a number of specific statutes relevant to self defense (not all states do, relying instead on case law), the most central of which for this trial will be: 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.posted by tonycpsu at 2:21 PM on July 15, 2013
Also, FL 782.02. Justifiable use of deadly force
It seems likely that given the facts of the case the prosecution will also try to apply Florida’s aggressor statute: 776.041. Use of force by aggressor.
Finally, I expect we’ll also see the defense raise Florida’s immunity statute at trial: 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Can we say this is what happened for sure? Nope. Can we say this leaves easy room for reasonable doubt? Yes.
There is no reasonable doubt that the authorities instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and that Zimmerman disobeyed those clear and straightforward instructions, after which followed Martin's subsequent killing in a direct causal fashion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
There is no reasonable doubt that the authorities instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and that Zimmerman disobeyed those clear and straightforward instructions, after which followed Martin's subsequent killing in a direct causal fashion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mod note: I know it's a big thread and reloading it may be a pain, but maybe make sure you're not continuing to reply to comments that were already deleted, or carrying on a derail that's already been cut off at the head.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:27 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:27 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
tonycpsu: The specific laws of FL are also specific in other states. I think the the author meant the specific law that would be pertinent to this case. Florida’s aggressor statute: 776.041. was not included in the jury instructions, and SYG immunity was also not raised. The thought crime you refer to is standard self-defense language. IANAL..
From your link:
he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force
posted by snaparapans at 2:34 PM on July 15, 2013
From your link:
The principle of Reasonableness is really an umbrella principle that applies to each of the previous four. The issue here is whether your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.In NY:
he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force
posted by snaparapans at 2:34 PM on July 15, 2013
No, the self-defense law is not the same in all 49 non-Ohio states.
The states differ on how self-defense applies in different places, usually allowing greater latitude at home for example. They differ on whether there is a duty to attempt retreat depending both on where you are and whether the force you use is lethal. Even before SYG Florida was out there permitting non-retreat self defense claims against murder anywhere you have a legal right to be. And lookee here...
posted by localroger at 2:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
The states differ on how self-defense applies in different places, usually allowing greater latitude at home for example. They differ on whether there is a duty to attempt retreat depending both on where you are and whether the force you use is lethal. Even before SYG Florida was out there permitting non-retreat self defense claims against murder anywhere you have a legal right to be. And lookee here...
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.I guess we don't have to waste a lot of energy looking for that clause in Florida's statutes now, do we?
posted by localroger at 2:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh, and this would be a pretty short book if the states were all that similar to one another.
posted by localroger at 2:39 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by localroger at 2:39 PM on July 15, 2013
Journalist Martin Bashir lays out the shooting and its aftermath in stark simplicity.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
OK localroger, we disagree and IANAL, my understanding is that the self-defense law that was used in this case is much the same as any state. Florida has SYG and possibly some unique things that other states have but not relevant to this case, imo.
Reasonable fear of death, and unable to flee were the two causes for justifiable homicide. Whatever you think about the case these two reasons are pretty standard in self-defense law.
posted by snaparapans at 2:44 PM on July 15, 2013
Reasonable fear of death, and unable to flee were the two causes for justifiable homicide. Whatever you think about the case these two reasons are pretty standard in self-defense law.
posted by snaparapans at 2:44 PM on July 15, 2013
When I see pictures of GZ's injuries
You guys should let the courts know about your available expertise.
posted by rr at 2:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
You guys should let the courts know about your available expertise.
posted by rr at 2:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have to admit that it's not really clear to me why no one outside of the courtroom is allowed to have an opinion, but in any case:When I see pictures of GZ's injuriesYou guys should let the courts know about your available expertise.
The court heard the testimony of a medical examiner who said that Zimmerman's injuries were very insignificant. Not just insignificant; very insignificant.
posted by Flunkie at 3:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [30 favorites]
Whatever you think about the case these two reasons are pretty standard in self-defense law.
Except for the part where some states consider it "imperfect" if you provoked the attack, which is where most people think this thing went off the rails because that wasn't considered.
posted by localroger at 3:06 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Except for the part where some states consider it "imperfect" if you provoked the attack, which is where most people think this thing went off the rails because that wasn't considered.
posted by localroger at 3:06 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Florida also has an aggressor statute. But provoking in the eyes of the law is threatening to cause bodily harm. or physically attacking.
There was no evidence presented by the state that showed Zimmerman provoked Martin in this way.
posted by snaparapans at 3:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
There was no evidence presented by the state that showed Zimmerman provoked Martin in this way.
posted by snaparapans at 3:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Except for the part where some states consider it "imperfect" if you provoked the attack, which is where most people think this thing went off the rails because that wasn't considered.
As established in the other thread, because there were no witnesses to the beginning of the altercation the state had no way to prove Zimmerman provoked the physical encounter.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
As established in the other thread, because there were no witnesses to the beginning of the altercation the state had no way to prove Zimmerman provoked the physical encounter.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, because one of them is dead - yeah.
posted by edgeways at 3:16 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by edgeways at 3:16 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mediamatters explains how Florida's SYG law affected the jury instructions.
posted by localroger at 3:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by localroger at 3:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, because one of them is dead - yeah.
Unfortunately yes. That doesn't make it untrue, though.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on July 15, 2013
Unfortunately yes. That doesn't make it untrue, though.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on July 15, 2013
Just very, very convenient. Which is the point here about the problem with self-defense justifications, whether SYG or just the regular kind.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:30 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 3:30 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
OK localroger, SYG is in the jury instructions, but I do not see how the SYG applied to this case. Can you explain? My take is that if someone winds up believing that they are in mortal danger and cannot flee, they would be able to use justifiable force including homicide in any state.
posted by snaparapans at 3:32 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 3:32 PM on July 15, 2013
How is it "standing your ground" when you chase someone down? And you're the one who pulls a weapon?
posted by grubi at 3:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by grubi at 3:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
It isn't. They defended this case as a traditional self-defense case, not a stand your ground case.
I'm conflicted about the lawsuit against NBC. On the one hand, NBC's edit was bullshit and they need to learn to stop doing crap like that. On the other hand, Zimmerman is a mall ninja tool and I hate to see him get any money. Maybe the winnings would go to pay his attorneys since they obviously did a lot of the case for little or no pay. Relative to their typical hourly costs I mean.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 15, 2013
I'm conflicted about the lawsuit against NBC. On the one hand, NBC's edit was bullshit and they need to learn to stop doing crap like that. On the other hand, Zimmerman is a mall ninja tool and I hate to see him get any money. Maybe the winnings would go to pay his attorneys since they obviously did a lot of the case for little or no pay. Relative to their typical hourly costs I mean.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 15, 2013
Okay, then how is it self-defense if you chase someone down and you're the one who pulls the weapon?
posted by grubi at 3:59 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by grubi at 3:59 PM on July 15, 2013
Okay, then how is it self-defense if you chase someone down and you're the one who pulls the weapon?
There are literally 2000 comments of the past several threads discussing this specific issue.
posted by jessamyn at 4:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [16 favorites]
There are literally 2000 comments of the past several threads discussing this specific issue.
posted by jessamyn at 4:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [16 favorites]
Exactly, I've tried to point to the other thread where delmoi and I went at that point OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I don't want to do it again.
posted by Justinian at 4:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
There are literally 2000 comments of the past several threads discussing this specific issue.
That's why I'm confused. I haven't seen anything that makes sense.I have read all of these, and I keep asking "But how? How is defined as that?" I'm not asking out of laziness. I'm asking because nobody has definitively shown how this qualifies.
posted by grubi at 4:07 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's why I'm confused. I haven't seen anything that makes sense.I have read all of these, and I keep asking "But how? How is defined as that?" I'm not asking out of laziness. I'm asking because nobody has definitively shown how this qualifies.
posted by grubi at 4:07 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I haven't seen anything that makes sense.
Right, it doesn't make sense.
posted by jessamyn at 4:10 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
Right, it doesn't make sense.
posted by jessamyn at 4:10 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
I miss delmoi.
posted by homunculus at 4:11 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:11 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
OK localroger, SYG is in the jury instructions, but I do not see how the SYG applied to this case. Can you explain?
Observe, from the pre-SYG instructions:
posted by localroger at 4:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Observe, from the pre-SYG instructions:
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.He instigated the situation and was confronted with a justifiably angry person ready to confront him for his asshattery. His many opportunities to not engage might have been admissible if this was the jury instruction. Instead, it was all focused on the moment of ultimate confrontation, as if that occurred in some kind of space-time vacuum where there it just happened at random without a chain of causality.
posted by localroger at 4:29 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
"... I'm asking because nobody has definitively shown how this qualifies."
posted by grubi at 7:07 PM on July 15
Let me try to help you. There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down." None. Zip, zero, de nada.
There is an approximately 4 minute gap between the end of the last phone call Trayvon Martin was on, talking to the girl in Miami, and the start of the 911 call from a neighbor who heard the fracas, and called the cops. Plenty of time for Trayvon to physically get home, and lock the door. Or, plenty of time for Trayvon to circle back to the sidewalk T-intersection where Zimmerman says Martin first physically accosted him, and close to where Trayvon Martin's keys, cell phone, and body were eventually found.
We may never know, for sure, every detail of the altercation.
But, since none of the physical evidence contravenes Zimmerman's account of the matter significantly, that, plus Zimmerman's injury evidence, apparently created, for the jury, reasonable doubt (siding with Zimmerman by legal instruction to do so from the court) as to Zimmerman's need to use deadly, but justifiable, force. But I urge you to wade through O'Mara's closing argument, as he reviewed every witness in the case, and discussed reasonable doubt, to the jury. It's textbook, and it does, I believe, make common sense.
posted by paulsc at 4:33 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by grubi at 7:07 PM on July 15
Let me try to help you. There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down." None. Zip, zero, de nada.
There is an approximately 4 minute gap between the end of the last phone call Trayvon Martin was on, talking to the girl in Miami, and the start of the 911 call from a neighbor who heard the fracas, and called the cops. Plenty of time for Trayvon to physically get home, and lock the door. Or, plenty of time for Trayvon to circle back to the sidewalk T-intersection where Zimmerman says Martin first physically accosted him, and close to where Trayvon Martin's keys, cell phone, and body were eventually found.
We may never know, for sure, every detail of the altercation.
But, since none of the physical evidence contravenes Zimmerman's account of the matter significantly, that, plus Zimmerman's injury evidence, apparently created, for the jury, reasonable doubt (siding with Zimmerman by legal instruction to do so from the court) as to Zimmerman's need to use deadly, but justifiable, force. But I urge you to wade through O'Mara's closing argument, as he reviewed every witness in the case, and discussed reasonable doubt, to the jury. It's textbook, and it does, I believe, make common sense.
posted by paulsc at 4:33 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Let me try to help you. There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down." None. Zip, zero, de nada.
Then why would the police ask him to stop following someone he supposedly wasn't following?
posted by grubi at 4:37 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Then why would the police ask him to stop following someone he supposedly wasn't following?
posted by grubi at 4:37 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
yeah usually when i swear about fucking punks always getting away and disobey 9-1-1 dispatcher instructions it's to offer somebody a cookie
posted by angrycat at 4:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 4:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [9 favorites]
Yeah, that's just it. Somehow he's not chasing someone down he's been told to stop following? Someone he describes as "getting away"? The fuck?
posted by grubi at 4:43 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by grubi at 4:43 PM on July 15, 2013
"Then why would the police ask him to stop following someone he supposedly wasn't following?"
posted by grubi at 7:37 PM on July 15
According the prosecution's own witness, the police never, to use your words "ask(ed) him to stop following someone," because it is against their policy to command or instruct 911 callers to do, or not to do anything. They said they didn't need Zimmerman to "do that." And as it's pretty clear from your comment timestamps that you can't be bothered to read links that explain trial evidence and arguments, I'm done trying to help you.
posted by paulsc at 4:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by grubi at 7:37 PM on July 15
According the prosecution's own witness, the police never, to use your words "ask(ed) him to stop following someone," because it is against their policy to command or instruct 911 callers to do, or not to do anything. They said they didn't need Zimmerman to "do that." And as it's pretty clear from your comment timestamps that you can't be bothered to read links that explain trial evidence and arguments, I'm done trying to help you.
posted by paulsc at 4:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
According the prosecution's own witness, the police never, to use your words "ask(ed) him to stop following someone," because it is against their policy to command or instruct 911 callers to do, or not to do anything. They said they didn't need Zimmerman to "do that."
And the fact that he got out of his car and described Martin as "getting away"? How is that not following him?
I'm done trying to help you.
You're not trying to help anyone. You seem to have a specific agenda to defend the point of view that Zimmerman was right. I've asked people to explain to me how in the world a man can rightfully claim self-defense when he specifically sought out another human being and then was the only one of the two to pull a weapon. You've not explained that.
posted by grubi at 4:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
And the fact that he got out of his car and described Martin as "getting away"? How is that not following him?
I'm done trying to help you.
You're not trying to help anyone. You seem to have a specific agenda to defend the point of view that Zimmerman was right. I've asked people to explain to me how in the world a man can rightfully claim self-defense when he specifically sought out another human being and then was the only one of the two to pull a weapon. You've not explained that.
posted by grubi at 4:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [12 favorites]
There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down."
From the transcript:
The police weren't speaking to Zimmerman, it was a police dispatcher who was advising him not follow Trayvon.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down."
George was in his SUV when placing this call. Yet Trayvon was killed on a lawn, outside and away from GZ's car. I'm not sure how Zimmerman got out of the car unless he followed Martin.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
From the transcript:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?Then why would the police ask him to stop following someone he supposedly wasn't following?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
The police weren't speaking to Zimmerman, it was a police dispatcher who was advising him not follow Trayvon.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down."
George was in his SUV when placing this call. Yet Trayvon was killed on a lawn, outside and away from GZ's car. I'm not sure how Zimmerman got out of the car unless he followed Martin.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:51 PM on July 15, 2013 [15 favorites]
maybe he threw skittles at the SUV, thus putting zimmerman in mortal danger
posted by pyramid termite at 4:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 4:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
Thank you, Brandon Blatcher. That helps back up what I was saying.
paulsc: There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down." None. Zip, zero, de nada.
So he told the dispatcher he was following Martin. And he was in his own automobile when he said this. And he got out of the automobile at some point -- and ended up near Martin.
How precisely was he not following Trayvon Martin?
posted by grubi at 4:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
paulsc: There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, to use your words, "chase(d) someone down." None. Zip, zero, de nada.
So he told the dispatcher he was following Martin. And he was in his own automobile when he said this. And he got out of the automobile at some point -- and ended up near Martin.
How precisely was he not following Trayvon Martin?
posted by grubi at 4:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
sio42, I did look at your posting history from today. I still can't find one thing that someone asserted about Zimmerman not following Martin that holds up.
posted by grubi at 4:55 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by grubi at 4:55 PM on July 15, 2013
grubi, there's gonna be folks who are gonna claim that there is sense to this thing, that there is some kind of fairness. they are not quite moored in reality. there are no good answers
posted by angrycat at 4:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 4:56 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure how Zimmerman got out of the car unless he followed Martin.
Magic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:57 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Magic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:57 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm not on Zimmerman's side here, but it's pretty easy to construct, in a vacuum, a scenario in which one person follows another person, is violently attacked by them and shoots them in order to stop the assault. Following is not chasing someone down.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Bookhouse at 4:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
And you won't, grubi. Accept it, instead of trying to battle it. There is no justice to be had in this case, only the strict interpretation of bad law.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:58 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by five fresh fish at 4:58 PM on July 15, 2013
Here's a pictorial layout of the neighborhood, with indications on were events occurred.
The blue square is Zimmerman's truck. The red square is where the shooting happened. He followed Martin. If you want to argue semantics of followed vs chased, that's fine, but's clear that Zimmerman injected himself into a potentially dangerous situation, rather than staying in his truck.
George Zimmerman is a poster child of why some people shouldn't have guns.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:59 PM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
The blue square is Zimmerman's truck. The red square is where the shooting happened. He followed Martin. If you want to argue semantics of followed vs chased, that's fine, but's clear that Zimmerman injected himself into a potentially dangerous situation, rather than staying in his truck.
George Zimmerman is a poster child of why some people shouldn't have guns.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:59 PM on July 15, 2013 [19 favorites]
The police weren't speaking to Zimmerman, it was a police dispatcher who was advising him not follow Trayvon.
Ohhh, so it wasn't one member of the police department, it was another member of the police department? Well that makes it completely different then!
posted by winna at 5:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
Ohhh, so it wasn't one member of the police department, it was another member of the police department? Well that makes it completely different then!
posted by winna at 5:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
There's a difference between following someone and "chasing him down". (edit: Bookhouse beat me to it).
It's not fair, it doesn't make sense, I wanted (and still want) Zimmerman held responsible for Martin's death. But seeing the prosecution's evidence, seeing the defense, reading the link paulsc provided, and knowing the judge's instructions on the specific charges - if I was on that jury I would not be able to convict, in good conscience.
posted by Roommate at 5:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's not fair, it doesn't make sense, I wanted (and still want) Zimmerman held responsible for Martin's death. But seeing the prosecution's evidence, seeing the defense, reading the link paulsc provided, and knowing the judge's instructions on the specific charges - if I was on that jury I would not be able to convict, in good conscience.
posted by Roommate at 5:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
The court heard the testimony of a medical examiner who said that Zimmerman's injuries were very insignificant. Not just insignificant; very insignificant.
That's one of the things that makes me so sad about this. For a "reasonable" person to conclude that Zimmerman genuinely thought his life was in danger with that level of injury, he (the reasonable person) would need to believe that Zimmerman has a serious disconnect with the world as it is.
Because this whole thing has me in a very dark mood indeed, I now have this longing to make a video called "Bumblin' George" and upload it to YouTube. It would show:
- Bumbling George shaving in the morning before going to work. He gives himself a small nick, sees it in the mirror and screams, "I sliced my jugular! I'm going to bleed out!" He then picks up a gun lying nearby and fires several shots into his razor.
- Bumbling George walking through his house at night. Stubs his toe on the couch. Exclaims, "Ah, my toe! They're going to have to amputate my leg!" He then picks up a gun lying nearby and fires several shots into the couch.
- Bumbling George is parking his car at the mall. As he exits, his door swings out and hits the (empty) car next to him. George exclaims, "You crashed into my car! It's going to explode!" and then picks up a gun nearby and fires several shots at the offending car.
- Video ends with a group of people wearing NRA and StormFront paraphernalia walking up to Bumbling George and laughing with him at his antics. One of them gently chucks him on the chin and says, "Oh, George!" George exclaims, "You almost decapitated me!" Picks up a gun lying nearby and...fade to black over circus music.
I know such a video wouldn't help matters one little bit, but fantasizing about it just now brought me some small measure of relief.
posted by lord_wolf at 5:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [14 favorites]
That's one of the things that makes me so sad about this. For a "reasonable" person to conclude that Zimmerman genuinely thought his life was in danger with that level of injury, he (the reasonable person) would need to believe that Zimmerman has a serious disconnect with the world as it is.
Because this whole thing has me in a very dark mood indeed, I now have this longing to make a video called "Bumblin' George" and upload it to YouTube. It would show:
- Bumbling George shaving in the morning before going to work. He gives himself a small nick, sees it in the mirror and screams, "I sliced my jugular! I'm going to bleed out!" He then picks up a gun lying nearby and fires several shots into his razor.
- Bumbling George walking through his house at night. Stubs his toe on the couch. Exclaims, "Ah, my toe! They're going to have to amputate my leg!" He then picks up a gun lying nearby and fires several shots into the couch.
- Bumbling George is parking his car at the mall. As he exits, his door swings out and hits the (empty) car next to him. George exclaims, "You crashed into my car! It's going to explode!" and then picks up a gun nearby and fires several shots at the offending car.
- Video ends with a group of people wearing NRA and StormFront paraphernalia walking up to Bumbling George and laughing with him at his antics. One of them gently chucks him on the chin and says, "Oh, George!" George exclaims, "You almost decapitated me!" Picks up a gun lying nearby and...fade to black over circus music.
I know such a video wouldn't help matters one little bit, but fantasizing about it just now brought me some small measure of relief.
posted by lord_wolf at 5:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [14 favorites]
it doesn't make sense, I wanted (and still want) Zimmerman held responsible for Martin's death. But seeing the prosecution's evidence, seeing the defense, reading the link paulsc provided, and knowing the judge's instructions on the specific charges - if I was on that jury I would not be able to convict, in good conscience.
So that just means the laws in Florida are broken right? But I would think there still must have been a lesser charge he could have been convicted on that could at least prevent him from carrying a firearm. If I were living in Sanford I would be a lot more scared by the fact that guys like Zimmerman are carrying around 9mm's with hair-triggers and no safety than the possibility that some people may protest for peace and justice.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:07 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
So that just means the laws in Florida are broken right? But I would think there still must have been a lesser charge he could have been convicted on that could at least prevent him from carrying a firearm. If I were living in Sanford I would be a lot more scared by the fact that guys like Zimmerman are carrying around 9mm's with hair-triggers and no safety than the possibility that some people may protest for peace and justice.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:07 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ohhh, so it wasn't one member of the police department, it was another member of the police department? Well that makes it completely different then!
It's my understanding that it does from a legal standpoint and that fact that Zimmerman was not explicitly told to not follow Martin, merely advised. A dispatcher had very different responsibilities than a gun, taster and handcuff toting officer in the field.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:07 PM on July 15, 2013
It's my understanding that it does from a legal standpoint and that fact that Zimmerman was not explicitly told to not follow Martin, merely advised. A dispatcher had very different responsibilities than a gun, taster and handcuff toting officer in the field.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:07 PM on July 15, 2013
If I were living in Sanford I would be a lot more scared by the fact that guys like Zimmerman are carrying around 9mm's with hair-triggers and no safety than the possibility that some people may protest for peace and justice.
This is the part that kills me. Had Trayvon gotten away or merely been questioned by police, then what would have happened 2 or 3 years from now?
Martin might have too many cavities. Zimmerman might have killed someone else due to his cowboy antics.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:09 PM on July 15, 2013
This is the part that kills me. Had Trayvon gotten away or merely been questioned by police, then what would have happened 2 or 3 years from now?
Martin might have too many cavities. Zimmerman might have killed someone else due to his cowboy antics.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:09 PM on July 15, 2013
There is an approximately 4 minute gap between the end of the last phone call Trayvon Martin was on, talking to the girl in Miami, and the start of the 911 call from a neighbor who heard the fracas, and called the cops. Plenty of time for Trayvon to physically get home, and lock the door. Or, plenty of time for Trayvon to circle back to the sidewalk T-intersection where Zimmerman says Martin first physically accosted him, and close to where Trayvon Martin's keys, cell phone, and body were eventually found.
Actually, there was not a 4-minute gap between the last phone call between Martin and Jenteal and the fight. In fact, she testified that she was on the phone with Martin when he was accosted by Zimmerman, which in turn doesn't give Martin any time to get back home and lock the door, and puts Zimmerman as the initial aggressor.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:10 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Actually, there was not a 4-minute gap between the last phone call between Martin and Jenteal and the fight. In fact, she testified that she was on the phone with Martin when he was accosted by Zimmerman, which in turn doesn't give Martin any time to get back home and lock the door, and puts Zimmerman as the initial aggressor.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:10 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
he was accosted by Zimmerman, which in turn doesn't give Martin any time to get back home and lock the door, and puts him as the initial aggressor.
Please elaborate.
posted by kittensofthenight at 5:14 PM on July 15, 2013
Please elaborate.
posted by kittensofthenight at 5:14 PM on July 15, 2013
Nope, still not seeing how following a guy, especially as far as he did, will not negate the claim it was self-defense. Instead there are people trying claim he didn't follow the guy when he clearly did.
posted by grubi at 5:20 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by grubi at 5:20 PM on July 15, 2013
We know he followed Martin (the asshole/fucking punk that always gets away) who was running away from him worried about a creepy person. We have some period of time where we aren't absolutely certain what happened after that, and some people find it reasonable that possibly the teenager running scared decided to turn around and beat the creepy person following him to death and then announced his attention to murder the person and then proceeded to try and steal a gun.
It kind of feels to me like someone chasing another party into a house with a knife shouting complaints about the person getting away, and then we don't know what happened but the person who was chased has been stabbed to death. Really, we know what happened.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:22 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
It kind of feels to me like someone chasing another party into a house with a knife shouting complaints about the person getting away, and then we don't know what happened but the person who was chased has been stabbed to death. Really, we know what happened.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:22 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Please elaborate.
According to Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin at the time, Zimmerman confronted Martin.
This varies wildly from the story Zimmerman told police, who questioned him for five hours, then released him because there was no evidence to that conflicted with his version of events. Funny what happens when someone bothers to check the last call the killed person made and question them.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
According to Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin at the time, Zimmerman confronted Martin.
This varies wildly from the story Zimmerman told police, who questioned him for five hours, then released him because there was no evidence to that conflicted with his version of events. Funny what happens when someone bothers to check the last call the killed person made and question them.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
"... In fact, she testified that she was on the phone with Martin when he was accosted by Zimmerman, which in turn doesn't give Martin any time to get back home and lock the door, and puts him as the initial aggressor."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:10 PM on July 15
There are, at least. to consider, the call log timestamps supplied by disinterested phone companies (for Martin's and Zimmerman's phones) and separately (possibly from a different but probably network corrected clock) for 911 dispatch, there are the recorded voice logs from the 911 calls, there is testimony from eyewitnesses to part of the struggle, there are the videotaped statements by Zimmerman, there is the testimony of Jenteal, and there is the jury instruction from the court that tells the jury they are free to weight the testimony of any witness, or any piece of evidence as they find most believable, and then there is O'Mara's final argument and timeline, and the prosecution's rebuttal. The standard for decision for acquittal was "reasonable doubt."
posted by paulsc at 5:29 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by zombieflanders at 8:10 PM on July 15
There are, at least. to consider, the call log timestamps supplied by disinterested phone companies (for Martin's and Zimmerman's phones) and separately (possibly from a different but probably network corrected clock) for 911 dispatch, there are the recorded voice logs from the 911 calls, there is testimony from eyewitnesses to part of the struggle, there are the videotaped statements by Zimmerman, there is the testimony of Jenteal, and there is the jury instruction from the court that tells the jury they are free to weight the testimony of any witness, or any piece of evidence as they find most believable, and then there is O'Mara's final argument and timeline, and the prosecution's rebuttal. The standard for decision for acquittal was "reasonable doubt."
posted by paulsc at 5:29 PM on July 15, 2013
Yes, the call logs for her phone do not show a four minute gap. Seconds, if anything. Zimmerman is the one who hung up earlier. The potential doubt about Trayvon's location from her call is that he says he is by his dad's house during the call.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
According to Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin at the time, Zimmerman confronted Martin.
That link also points out she lied about her age, and lied under oath about her whereabouts during Martin's funeral. This could certainly raise "reasonable doubt" about her statements about her conversation with Martin, and whether they should be used to convict a man.
posted by Roommate at 5:35 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
That link also points out she lied about her age, and lied under oath about her whereabouts during Martin's funeral. This could certainly raise "reasonable doubt" about her statements about her conversation with Martin, and whether they should be used to convict a man.
posted by Roommate at 5:35 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anderson Cooper just broadcast part of an interview he did with one of the jurors. It made me facepalm. Even if one thinks they probably reached the "correct" verdict according to a crappy law that lends itself to these situations it's kind of apparent it was by accident and not through some sort of nuanced consideration of all the aspects of the case.
My conviction that I never want my fate to be determined by the "reasoned deliberations" of a jury of random strangers has gotten even stronger and I didn't think that was possible.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
My conviction that I never want my fate to be determined by the "reasoned deliberations" of a jury of random strangers has gotten even stronger and I didn't think that was possible.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
FWIW the initial straw poll the jurors took before they started deliberations was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, and 1 2nd degree murder. That means that fully half the jury switched their opinions from a conviction to not guilty. That surprises me.
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Justinian at 5:40 PM on July 15, 2013
That link also points out she lied about her age, and lied under oath about her whereabouts during Martin's funeral. This could certainly raise "reasonable doubt" about her statements about her conversation with Martin, and whether they should be used to convict a man.
Very true, she did lie about those things. Mind you, none of that says her testimony of the events was a lie. It also doesn't excuse the Sanford police for letting Zimmerman go because they couldn't find any evidence that contradicted his version of events.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Very true, she did lie about those things. Mind you, none of that says her testimony of the events was a lie. It also doesn't excuse the Sanford police for letting Zimmerman go because they couldn't find any evidence that contradicted his version of events.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Yes, the call logs for her phone do not show a four minute gap."
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 PM on July 15
Her phone? To what? The beginning of the 911 Lauer call, that independently reported the struggle (and contained the screams and gunshot sound evidence)? Because, as far as I remember, O'Mara relied on network timestamps for Martin's phone, a matter of record. But I would be surprised if "her" phone logs, vs. Martin's, varied by more than a few seconds, referenced to the 911 clock. Not 4 minutes.
But it doesn't matter what I, or you, believe. It only matters what the jury came to believe.
posted by paulsc at 5:41 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 PM on July 15
Her phone? To what? The beginning of the 911 Lauer call, that independently reported the struggle (and contained the screams and gunshot sound evidence)? Because, as far as I remember, O'Mara relied on network timestamps for Martin's phone, a matter of record. But I would be surprised if "her" phone logs, vs. Martin's, varied by more than a few seconds, referenced to the 911 clock. Not 4 minutes.
But it doesn't matter what I, or you, believe. It only matters what the jury came to believe.
posted by paulsc at 5:41 PM on July 15, 2013
Yes, instead we should believe the guy who lied to the police about "just getting an address"
posted by kagredon at 5:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 5:42 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
Leonard Pitts: Zimmerman verdict leaves key question unanswered
posted by maggieb at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by maggieb at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
On the other hand my opinion on what was going to decide the case which I expressed in the other thread feels kind of vindicated. The juror says that they felt the law required them to consider almost exclusively the moments leading up to the gunshot and that all the stuff leading up to it (Zimmerman following Martin, etc) did not constitute provocation under the law.
She didn't phrase it that way, of course, being unable to string together coherent thoughts and sentences. I hope that's just nerves from being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. But that's what it comes down to; what the jurors felt the law required was determining if Zimmerman felt in fear of grave bodily injury in the moments before he fired and whether or not he directly instigated the physical altercation.
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
She didn't phrase it that way, of course, being unable to string together coherent thoughts and sentences. I hope that's just nerves from being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. But that's what it comes down to; what the jurors felt the law required was determining if Zimmerman felt in fear of grave bodily injury in the moments before he fired and whether or not he directly instigated the physical altercation.
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh, this juror is a chiropractor. I see the problem. (/hamburger).
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what you are really getting at paulsc. What the logs show is the Martin call disconnected some time in the 7:16 minute. The first 911 call about a fight was 11 seconds into that minute. There is no four minute gap of any kind.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
That link also points out she lied about her age, and lied under oath about her whereabouts during Martin's funeral. This could certainly raise "reasonable doubt" about her statements about her conversation with Martin, and whether they should be used to convict a man.
Look, we can go back and forth on the trustworthiness of the various people, and who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt, but as Justinian and jessamyn stated, this is well-hashed ground already. Furthermore, it smacks of a need to continue to put Martin on trial instead Zimmerman. What people are concerned about now is less how the jury came to accept self-defense, and more how this particular application of self-defense law is problematic.
Her phone? To what? The beginning of the 911 Lauer call, that independently reported the struggle (and contained the screams and gunshot sound evidence)? Because, as far as I remember, O'Mara relied on network timestamps for Martin's phone, a matter of record. But I would be surprised if "her" phone logs, vs. Martin's, varied by more than a few seconds, referenced to the 911 clock. Not 4 minutes.
According to T-Mobile (carrier for both Jenteal and Martin), the timestamp of the end of the last call was between 7:15 and 7:16, and the 911 call from Lauer began at 7:16:11.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Look, we can go back and forth on the trustworthiness of the various people, and who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt, but as Justinian and jessamyn stated, this is well-hashed ground already. Furthermore, it smacks of a need to continue to put Martin on trial instead Zimmerman. What people are concerned about now is less how the jury came to accept self-defense, and more how this particular application of self-defense law is problematic.
Her phone? To what? The beginning of the 911 Lauer call, that independently reported the struggle (and contained the screams and gunshot sound evidence)? Because, as far as I remember, O'Mara relied on network timestamps for Martin's phone, a matter of record. But I would be surprised if "her" phone logs, vs. Martin's, varied by more than a few seconds, referenced to the 911 clock. Not 4 minutes.
According to T-Mobile (carrier for both Jenteal and Martin), the timestamp of the end of the last call was between 7:15 and 7:16, and the 911 call from Lauer began at 7:16:11.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
(And again, the reason to have potential doubt about what Martin was doing from that call is that he says he is by his father's house, which can be interpreted as he turned around from there to go back and confront Zimmerman. If he did this or not, he was still on the phone for it.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:53 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Drinky Die at 5:53 PM on July 15, 2013
Furthermore, it smacks of a need to continue to put Martin on trial instead Zimmerman.
I really wish we could get some big blinky red text at the stop of the page saying STOP DOING THIS.
Because yea, that's really all i can see when i read comments like that. And there sure are a whole lot of 'em in here.
This isn't metacommentary about "how mefi handles this subject" or something either. It's just fucking depressing. Every single place i look i see it. It isn't just limited to reddit or a few right wing assholes on the internet this time, it's a significant percentage of the discourse anywhere you go.
I'm also struggling to see the point of the discussion thread of "what if he turned around or something?" since i'm still failing to see a situation in which that makes it logical for zimmerman to pull out his gun unless martin was also armed. Which he wasn't.
I'd be willing to buy that he turned around and said "hey, quit fuckin following me man" or something which then started the conflict. Judging from what we know, this is just as likely as any of the other constructed narratives.
And yet i'm not seeing a whole lot in here that are charitable to martin. Which kinda says a lot, in and of itself. In any number of other circumstances i'd think "Eh, people are just doing that thing they do where they try and imagine a situation is less awful than it seems so that it's less upsetting", but the undertones of this situation make it seem a hell of a lot more gross than that.
posted by emptythought at 5:57 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
I really wish we could get some big blinky red text at the stop of the page saying STOP DOING THIS.
Because yea, that's really all i can see when i read comments like that. And there sure are a whole lot of 'em in here.
This isn't metacommentary about "how mefi handles this subject" or something either. It's just fucking depressing. Every single place i look i see it. It isn't just limited to reddit or a few right wing assholes on the internet this time, it's a significant percentage of the discourse anywhere you go.
I'm also struggling to see the point of the discussion thread of "what if he turned around or something?" since i'm still failing to see a situation in which that makes it logical for zimmerman to pull out his gun unless martin was also armed. Which he wasn't.
I'd be willing to buy that he turned around and said "hey, quit fuckin following me man" or something which then started the conflict. Judging from what we know, this is just as likely as any of the other constructed narratives.
And yet i'm not seeing a whole lot in here that are charitable to martin. Which kinda says a lot, in and of itself. In any number of other circumstances i'd think "Eh, people are just doing that thing they do where they try and imagine a situation is less awful than it seems so that it's less upsetting", but the undertones of this situation make it seem a hell of a lot more gross than that.
posted by emptythought at 5:57 PM on July 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
What people are concerned about now is less how the jury came to accept self-defense
I missed part of the interview since I didn't even know there was an interview but it sounded to me like this juror indicated they believed it was Zimmerman yelling on the 911 tape and that nobody could prove one way or another who threw the first punch which created reasonable doubt enough for an acquittal.
The interview is really fascinating if only because it shows exactly how much or how little juries behave like you expect them to behave. And because it answers some of the questions people have raised over the last few weeks.
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on July 15, 2013
I missed part of the interview since I didn't even know there was an interview but it sounded to me like this juror indicated they believed it was Zimmerman yelling on the 911 tape and that nobody could prove one way or another who threw the first punch which created reasonable doubt enough for an acquittal.
The interview is really fascinating if only because it shows exactly how much or how little juries behave like you expect them to behave. And because it answers some of the questions people have raised over the last few weeks.
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on July 15, 2013
Look, we can go back and forth on the trustworthiness of the various people, and who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt, but as Justinian and jessamyn stated, this is well-hashed ground already. Furthermore, it smacks of a need to continue to put Martin on trial instead Zimmerman. What people are concerned about now is less how the jury came to accept self-defense, and more how this particular application of self-defense law is problematic.
I agree that the trustworthiness of various people is debatable. Who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt is not - it is explicitly on the prosecution to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury didn't have to "accept self-defense". They just had to accept the possibility of self defense. Or believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. I think Zimmerman is scum, I think this whole thing has been a travesty. I wish the prosecution had presented a better case, or sought a lesser charge. But they didn't, and I would have a hard time condemning him based on the facts presented, and can sympathize with the jury not being able to do so.
The whole thing sucks and I feel kind of dirty for feeling like I'm defending Zimmerman here... I'm really not. And I sure as shit am not putting Martin on trial. But I do understand the jury's decision.
posted by Roommate at 6:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
I agree that the trustworthiness of various people is debatable. Who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt is not - it is explicitly on the prosecution to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury didn't have to "accept self-defense". They just had to accept the possibility of self defense. Or believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. I think Zimmerman is scum, I think this whole thing has been a travesty. I wish the prosecution had presented a better case, or sought a lesser charge. But they didn't, and I would have a hard time condemning him based on the facts presented, and can sympathize with the jury not being able to do so.
The whole thing sucks and I feel kind of dirty for feeling like I'm defending Zimmerman here... I'm really not. And I sure as shit am not putting Martin on trial. But I do understand the jury's decision.
posted by Roommate at 6:01 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Also, I 100% agree that "this particular application of self-defense law is problematic." It really is. I don't know how to make it better though, because there are certainly cases where self defense is justified. And I tend to fall in the camp that I'd rather err on the side of a criminal possibly going free than an innocent person going to prison for life.
posted by Roommate at 6:04 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Roommate at 6:04 PM on July 15, 2013
And yet i'm not seeing a whole lot in here that are charitable to martin. Which kinda says a lot, in and of itself.
I don't think it says as much as you might think, though. Even though I was pretty skeptical they would get a conviction here (along with pretty much the vast majority of actual lawyers following the case that I could see), you'd have to be blind to see the amount of sketchiness from many corners of the 'pro-Zimmerman' camp on the web. I get that. I think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt he's a jerk. I think following someone in public while armed should be illegal even though it doesn't appear to be. Certainly I don't think Martin deserved to die, and I don't think anyone here on any side does.
All that said, this is a thread about the acquittal of George Zimmerman in a murder trial. Because the prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, people thinking about how the state failed to do so are necessarily going to have to think of scenarios that are 'reasonable' based on the evidence where Zimmerman did not commit a crime, and by the nature of the fact that this is a confrontation arising from two people, those will often be less charitable to Martin. By all means talk about all the larger issues from the case, but if you don't want to hear scenarios at least reasonably possible based on the evidence that aren't charitable to the victim, to put it bluntly, you're not really interested in talking about a criminal trial.
posted by dsfan at 6:08 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't think it says as much as you might think, though. Even though I was pretty skeptical they would get a conviction here (along with pretty much the vast majority of actual lawyers following the case that I could see), you'd have to be blind to see the amount of sketchiness from many corners of the 'pro-Zimmerman' camp on the web. I get that. I think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt he's a jerk. I think following someone in public while armed should be illegal even though it doesn't appear to be. Certainly I don't think Martin deserved to die, and I don't think anyone here on any side does.
All that said, this is a thread about the acquittal of George Zimmerman in a murder trial. Because the prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, people thinking about how the state failed to do so are necessarily going to have to think of scenarios that are 'reasonable' based on the evidence where Zimmerman did not commit a crime, and by the nature of the fact that this is a confrontation arising from two people, those will often be less charitable to Martin. By all means talk about all the larger issues from the case, but if you don't want to hear scenarios at least reasonably possible based on the evidence that aren't charitable to the victim, to put it bluntly, you're not really interested in talking about a criminal trial.
posted by dsfan at 6:08 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Also, I 100% agree that "this particular application of self-defense law is problematic." It really is. I don't know how to make it better though, because there are certainly cases where self defense is justified.
As far as I can tell, a big problem with the law here is that self defense is a defense for everything. Murder, manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, the civil suit....
Should a theoretical person who has to kill someone in valid defense but only because of their own negligence be on death row or a life sentence? I don't think so. Should they be in jail for some period of time or pay civil damages? I think this case is a clear example that in some cases they should even if you disagree with murder or manslaughter 2.
(also, ban handguns nationally)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
As far as I can tell, a big problem with the law here is that self defense is a defense for everything. Murder, manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, the civil suit....
Should a theoretical person who has to kill someone in valid defense but only because of their own negligence be on death row or a life sentence? I don't think so. Should they be in jail for some period of time or pay civil damages? I think this case is a clear example that in some cases they should even if you disagree with murder or manslaughter 2.
(also, ban handguns nationally)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't know how to make it better though, because there are certainly cases where self defense is justified.
But this wasn't self defense. I mean, instead of saying "Hey man, you look lost - can I help you?" He said, "Fucking punks always get away." He mistakenly brought the fight to himself.
He was wrong, and somebody died. If I made an honest, reasonable mistake with my car and killed someone, I would go to jail. He made an (arguably) honest, reasonable mistake with his gun.
And he's not. That seems... incorrect.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
But this wasn't self defense. I mean, instead of saying "Hey man, you look lost - can I help you?" He said, "Fucking punks always get away." He mistakenly brought the fight to himself.
He was wrong, and somebody died. If I made an honest, reasonable mistake with my car and killed someone, I would go to jail. He made an (arguably) honest, reasonable mistake with his gun.
And he's not. That seems... incorrect.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:12 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
I agree that the trustworthiness of various people is debatable. Who the burden of proof is on for reasonable doubt is not - it is explicitly on the prosecution to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury didn't have to "accept self-defense". They just had to accept the possibility of self defense. Or believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. I think Zimmerman is scum, I think this whole thing has been a travesty. I wish the prosecution had presented a better case, or sought a lesser charge. But they didn't, and I would have a hard time condemning him based on the facts presented, and can sympathize with the jury not being able to do so.
Yes, sorry for not expanding on the concept of reasonable doubt that's being bandied about. I'm in agreement with you, Justinian, et al on that count.
Also, I 100% agree that "this particular application of self-defense law is problematic." It really is. I don't know how to make it better though, because there are certainly cases where self defense is justified. And I tend to fall in the camp that I'd rather err on the side of a criminal possibly going free than an innocent person going to prison for life.
There's a good argument to be made about a higher burden of proof in the case of people who armed, especially when the victim is not. Of course, SYG laws are in many ways meant to do just the opposite, but the numbers don't lie when the show that SYG isn't helping to reduce violent crime and/or makes the problem worse.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:13 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, sorry for not expanding on the concept of reasonable doubt that's being bandied about. I'm in agreement with you, Justinian, et al on that count.
Also, I 100% agree that "this particular application of self-defense law is problematic." It really is. I don't know how to make it better though, because there are certainly cases where self defense is justified. And I tend to fall in the camp that I'd rather err on the side of a criminal possibly going free than an innocent person going to prison for life.
There's a good argument to be made about a higher burden of proof in the case of people who armed, especially when the victim is not. Of course, SYG laws are in many ways meant to do just the opposite, but the numbers don't lie when the show that SYG isn't helping to reduce violent crime and/or makes the problem worse.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:13 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I also think it might be useful to require a higher burden of proof for the defense when they instigate the encounter, as in this case. If that was required, instead of the final direct physical altercation that the jury was required to hold to, this would likely have gone the other way, at least on the manslaughter charge. And don't even get me started on how badly the prosecution was here. The defense didn't even have to be good (and in some cases they weren't), they just had to not fuck up what was handed to them.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:20 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:20 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
This need some people have to continue to argue that Zimmerman deserves the benefit of the doubt, I just....I mean fuck, he got the biggest, bestest goddamn benefit of the doubt in the world: a not guilty verdict. He's gonna have to deal with some social approbation. Tough shit. I bet Trayvon would love to be alive enough for people to think he's an asshole.
posted by rtha at 6:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [22 favorites]
posted by rtha at 6:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [22 favorites]
But this wasn't self defense. I mean, instead of saying "Hey man, you look lost - can I help you?" He said, "Fucking punks always get away." He mistakenly brought the fight to himself.
I wonder what he would have said/thought if it were a white kid with a hoodie and a bag of skittles. I really think it would have been a lot more like the former.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
I wonder what he would have said/thought if it were a white kid with a hoodie and a bag of skittles. I really think it would have been a lot more like the former.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure if this has been posted, but Part 1 of Anderson Cooper's interview with juror B37, Part 2. I can't even.
posted by eunoia at 6:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by eunoia at 6:50 PM on July 15, 2013 [6 favorites]
This is entirely supposition, of course, but my gut feeling is that that's unlikely. I think it's more likely that a kid he didn't perceive as a punk wouldn't have even pinged his radar.But this wasn't self defense. I mean, instead of saying "Hey man, you look lost - can I help you?" He said, "Fucking punks always get away." He mistakenly brought the fight to himself.I wonder what he would have said/thought if it were a white kid with a hoodie and a bag of skittles. I really think it would have been a lot more like the former.
He wasn't looking to help anybody. He was looking to prove he was a real man. "Lost kid" would've been forgotten in a moment, as he continued his hunt for a punk.
posted by Flunkie at 6:59 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
If I made an honest, reasonable mistake with my car and killed someone, I would go to jail. He made an (arguably) honest, reasonable mistake with his gun.
And he's not. That seems... incorrect.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt
I couldn't agree more. This is why it's startling to me that he wasn't convicted of manslaughter. I'm actually still feeling shock over this verdict.
posted by agregoli at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
And he's not. That seems... incorrect.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt
I couldn't agree more. This is why it's startling to me that he wasn't convicted of manslaughter. I'm actually still feeling shock over this verdict.
posted by agregoli at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
All that said, this is a thread about the acquittal of George Zimmerman in a murder trial. Because the prosecution bears the burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, people thinking about how the state failed to do so are necessarily going to have to think of scenarios that are 'reasonable' based on the evidence where Zimmerman did not commit a crime, and by the nature of the fact that this is a confrontation arising from two people, those will often be less charitable to Martin. By all means talk about all the larger issues from the case, but if you don't want to hear scenarios at least reasonably possible based on the evidence that aren't charitable to the victim, to put it bluntly, you're not really interested in talking about a criminal trial.
I think this is a really uncharitable reading of my post, and shoots right by and over the top of my point.
I have no issue with hearing what-ifs, or failures to explore possible angles from the prosection(of which there are many, they seriously fudged this one up.) there's a plethora of great posts in this thread exploring that.
What bugs me are the posts that basically play right in to the "scary black kid" stereotype shit. The kind of stuff where the narrative only makes sense if you buy in the, as was said above, crazy negro went crazy kind of narrative where it's just something like "not that surprising or implausible" that things happened the way zimmerman is saying they did.
There's just a lot of posts in here like that, which start off on the premise of something like "lets say martin jumped him to kick his ass for following him and then..."
There's a difference between "What narratives and angles could the prosecution have explored this from?" and "Lets write up white supremacist fantasies that make zimmermans actions seem more reasonable and logical".
Both of those things are going on here, and a lot of people are trying to pretend the second type of post is the first type. By saying that i'm attacking the first type by calling out the second type... you're basically giving legitimacy to their puppet show claims to such.
I have no idea what your intentions were, but i'm really hoping you can see the difference here.
Because as i said, there's a difference between "uncharitable to the victim" and "fantasy land". It may be in the eye of the beholder, but i'll vehemently claim it exists right up until i fall on my sword here.
posted by emptythought at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think this is a really uncharitable reading of my post, and shoots right by and over the top of my point.
I have no issue with hearing what-ifs, or failures to explore possible angles from the prosection(of which there are many, they seriously fudged this one up.) there's a plethora of great posts in this thread exploring that.
What bugs me are the posts that basically play right in to the "scary black kid" stereotype shit. The kind of stuff where the narrative only makes sense if you buy in the, as was said above, crazy negro went crazy kind of narrative where it's just something like "not that surprising or implausible" that things happened the way zimmerman is saying they did.
There's just a lot of posts in here like that, which start off on the premise of something like "lets say martin jumped him to kick his ass for following him and then..."
There's a difference between "What narratives and angles could the prosecution have explored this from?" and "Lets write up white supremacist fantasies that make zimmermans actions seem more reasonable and logical".
Both of those things are going on here, and a lot of people are trying to pretend the second type of post is the first type. By saying that i'm attacking the first type by calling out the second type... you're basically giving legitimacy to their puppet show claims to such.
I have no idea what your intentions were, but i'm really hoping you can see the difference here.
Because as i said, there's a difference between "uncharitable to the victim" and "fantasy land". It may be in the eye of the beholder, but i'll vehemently claim it exists right up until i fall on my sword here.
posted by emptythought at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
What I still can't get over is how the cops fucking released the guy at first.
This to me is where the greatest injustice occurs. They didn't just release him, they released him without gathering basically ANY evidence. So then, they try him, and he's found not guilty, because there wasn't sufficient evidence contradicting his story -- because the police didn't fucking gather any!!!
posted by KathrynT at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [29 favorites]
This to me is where the greatest injustice occurs. They didn't just release him, they released him without gathering basically ANY evidence. So then, they try him, and he's found not guilty, because there wasn't sufficient evidence contradicting his story -- because the police didn't fucking gather any!!!
posted by KathrynT at 7:02 PM on July 15, 2013 [29 favorites]
I... I think the juror couldn't even keep witnesses straight. She just confused Zimmerman's friend who was a medic in Vietnam with the medical expert who testified to forensics. I think?
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Him being released in the context of the entire situation really felt like some 1950s KKK dudes walking on lynchings because no one will arrest much less charge or convict shit. The whole situation has played out like something from one of the first VHS tapes from eyes on the prize i watched when i was like 12, honestly.
Normally i'd feel like that was hyperbolic or inflammatory, which it may be a little bit, but it just felt like such a good ol boys slap on the back and clink the beer glasses together "we got your back bro" kinda fucked up thing.
posted by emptythought at 7:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
Normally i'd feel like that was hyperbolic or inflammatory, which it may be a little bit, but it just felt like such a good ol boys slap on the back and clink the beer glasses together "we got your back bro" kinda fucked up thing.
posted by emptythought at 7:09 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
...this is a thread about the acquittal of George Zimmerman in a murder trial.... By all means talk about all the larger issues from the case, but if you don't want to hear scenarios at least reasonably possible based on the evidence that aren't charitable to the victim, to put it bluntly, you're not really interested in talking about a criminal trial.
This is also a thread about racism in America. In this thread and in the wider public discussion, people who hold Zimmerman in the wrong legally and/or ethically have been more willing to engage legal arguments than those who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically have be willing to engage arguments about racism. Indeed, many of the arguments focused on the letter of the law don't even acknowledge the racist critique that calls into question the extent to which our laws are just.
Personally, I'm not interested in talking about a criminal trial that if that discussion ignores racist cultural and institutional contexts. Or, as Attorney General Holder said:
This is also a thread about racism in America. In this thread and in the wider public discussion, people who hold Zimmerman in the wrong legally and/or ethically have been more willing to engage legal arguments than those who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically have be willing to engage arguments about racism. Indeed, many of the arguments focused on the letter of the law don't even acknowledge the racist critique that calls into question the extent to which our laws are just.
Personally, I'm not interested in talking about a criminal trial that if that discussion ignores racist cultural and institutional contexts. Or, as Attorney General Holder said:
Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised. We must not – as we have too often in the past – let this opportunity pass.posted by audi alteram partem at 7:14 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
I'm not sure if this has been posted, but Part 1 of Anderson Cooper's interview with juror B37, Part 2. I can't even.
Folks, don't watch part 2 if you want to keep your sanity.
posted by phaedon at 7:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Folks, don't watch part 2 if you want to keep your sanity.
posted by phaedon at 7:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
I... I think the juror couldn't even keep witnesses straight. She just confused Zimmerman's friend who was a medic in Vietnam with the medical expert who testified to forensics. I think?
Yeah, I got that impression as well. It doesn't help that she's terribly inarticulate (and I feel like I'm being generous in saying that). And seconding the recommendation to not watch part 2, unless you're a big Zimmerman supporter and you want to hear someone else cheerleading for him.
posted by palomar at 7:21 PM on July 15, 2013
Yeah, I got that impression as well. It doesn't help that she's terribly inarticulate (and I feel like I'm being generous in saying that). And seconding the recommendation to not watch part 2, unless you're a big Zimmerman supporter and you want to hear someone else cheerleading for him.
posted by palomar at 7:21 PM on July 15, 2013
What bugs me are the posts that basically play right in to the "scary black kid" stereotype shit. The kind of stuff where the narrative only makes sense if you buy in the, as was said above, crazy negro went crazy kind of narrative where it's just something like "not that surprising or implausible" that things happened the way zimmerman is saying they did.
You don't have to believe Martin was a 'crazy negro' (speaking of uncharitable) to believe he initiated the physical confrontation--for crying out loud, there are posts in this thread that have argued that he was right to do so that are indisputably on the anti-Zimmerman side. Do you think this argument, posted above, is the argument of a 'white supremacist'?:
You don't have to believe Martin was a 'crazy negro' (speaking of uncharitable) to believe he initiated the physical confrontation--for crying out loud, there are posts in this thread that have argued that he was right to do so that are indisputably on the anti-Zimmerman side. Do you think this argument, posted above, is the argument of a 'white supremacist'?:
"Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.posted by dsfan at 7:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution."
At the risk of a derail:
In 2010, the University of Florida SWAT team shot a disabled graduate student from Ghana in the head with a semi-automatic assault rifle. [More: 1, 2, 3.]
If this is how the police at Florida's most enlightened institution behave, it seems almost extravagant to expect its legislature or juries to show greater prudence.
posted by Westringia F. at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
In 2010, the University of Florida SWAT team shot a disabled graduate student from Ghana in the head with a semi-automatic assault rifle. [More: 1, 2, 3.]
If this is how the police at Florida's most enlightened institution behave, it seems almost extravagant to expect its legislature or juries to show greater prudence.
posted by Westringia F. at 7:24 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Notes from the Anderson Cooper interview with a juror:
She felt sorry for Rachel Jeantel , because of her poor communication skills and lack of education, did not find her credible and at times could barely understand her. Also, her version of events didn't match up with George Zimmerman's 911 call, even though she admits George's call ended two minutes before Rachel's.
The juror actually says Rachel was speaking in a way the juror had never heard before, which compounded the juror not being able to understand her testimony. Unbelievable how the juror doesn't view that as an issue.
Also feels that Zimmerman's heart was in the right place, but things went terribly wrong and if he's guilty of anything, it's that he's guilty of not using good judgement and should not have gotten out of the car. But the 911 operator kind of egged him on by asking if he could see where Martin went. Feels the operator should have said "stay in your car."
Thinks Trayvon threw the first punch and that George had a right to protect himself at that point. Believes it was George screaming for help on the recordings and that race played no part in the situation. Race was never discussed among the jurors.
Thinks George Z was just frustrated and would be ok with him as part of neighborhood watch where she lived, because he's learned his lesson about going to far. He would be more responsible that anyone on this planet right now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
She felt sorry for Rachel Jeantel , because of her poor communication skills and lack of education, did not find her credible and at times could barely understand her. Also, her version of events didn't match up with George Zimmerman's 911 call, even though she admits George's call ended two minutes before Rachel's.
The juror actually says Rachel was speaking in a way the juror had never heard before, which compounded the juror not being able to understand her testimony. Unbelievable how the juror doesn't view that as an issue.
Also feels that Zimmerman's heart was in the right place, but things went terribly wrong and if he's guilty of anything, it's that he's guilty of not using good judgement and should not have gotten out of the car. But the 911 operator kind of egged him on by asking if he could see where Martin went. Feels the operator should have said "stay in your car."
Thinks Trayvon threw the first punch and that George had a right to protect himself at that point. Believes it was George screaming for help on the recordings and that race played no part in the situation. Race was never discussed among the jurors.
Thinks George Z was just frustrated and would be ok with him as part of neighborhood watch where she lived, because he's learned his lesson about going to far. He would be more responsible that anyone on this planet right now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [7 favorites]
"In this thread and in the wider public discussion, people who hold Zimmerman in the wrong legally and/or ethically have been more willing to engage legal arguments than those who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically have be willing to engage arguments about racism."
Maybe the people here who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically, or at least the verdict at any rate, don't disagree with the arguments raised about racism and therefore there isn't much to argue about?
posted by cheburashka at 7:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe the people here who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically, or at least the verdict at any rate, don't disagree with the arguments raised about racism and therefore there isn't much to argue about?
posted by cheburashka at 7:25 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
The juror refers to Trayvon Martin and Rachel Jeantel as "these people" and "their way of life", which... wtf.
posted by palomar at 7:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [20 favorites]
posted by palomar at 7:31 PM on July 15, 2013 [20 favorites]
She felt sorry for Rachel Jeantel , because of her poor communication skills
IRONY
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
IRONY
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Speaking of...
Rachel Jeantel Remembers Trayvon in Heartbreaking Interview
posted by palomar at 7:42 PM on July 15, 2013
Rachel Jeantel Remembers Trayvon in Heartbreaking Interview
posted by palomar at 7:42 PM on July 15, 2013
I'm starting to feel like there should be a law preventing jurors from profiting from the cases they serve on.
posted by palomar at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [17 favorites]
posted by palomar at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [17 favorites]
Race was never discussed among the jurors.
posted by shothotbot at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by shothotbot at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
You don't have to believe Martin was a 'crazy negro' (speaking of uncharitable) to believe he initiated the physical confrontation--for crying out loud, there are posts in this thread that have argued that he was right to do so that are indisputably on the anti-Zimmerman side. Do you think this argument, posted above, is the argument of a 'white supremacist'?:
No, but you're once again lumping two distinct but similar-at-a-glance things together here.(i'd also like to note before i continue that i was referencing this comment from above with my "crazy" line that you referenced as also uncharitable).
There's a big, wide swath of ground between the people saying he was justified if/when/chooseyourownadventure he attacked or defended himself and the people saying that he initiated the conflict or attacked out of nowhere. These are blatantly separate groups if you pay attention to their narratives and how they're presenting their points.
So no, i don't think that post is white supremacist at all. But it's also note remotely what i was talking about and almost seems like a choice pull-quote to ty and minimize the issue i'm discussing, and kind some dirt over the line between the two distinct groups of arguments i outlined both here and in my previous post.
posted by emptythought at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
No, but you're once again lumping two distinct but similar-at-a-glance things together here.(i'd also like to note before i continue that i was referencing this comment from above with my "crazy" line that you referenced as also uncharitable).
There's a big, wide swath of ground between the people saying he was justified if/when/chooseyourownadventure he attacked or defended himself and the people saying that he initiated the conflict or attacked out of nowhere. These are blatantly separate groups if you pay attention to their narratives and how they're presenting their points.
So no, i don't think that post is white supremacist at all. But it's also note remotely what i was talking about and almost seems like a choice pull-quote to ty and minimize the issue i'm discussing, and kind some dirt over the line between the two distinct groups of arguments i outlined both here and in my previous post.
posted by emptythought at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ohhh, so it wasn't one member of the police department, it was another member of the police department? Well that makes it completely different then!
Dispatchers are not police officers. They're civilians.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
Dispatchers are not police officers. They're civilians.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
In 2010, the University of Florida SWAT team shot a disabled graduate student from Ghana in the head with a semi-automatic assault rifle.
Is it weird that my very first thought, right out the gate was "And why the fuck does a university police department have a swat team?"
posted by emptythought at 7:48 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is it weird that my very first thought, right out the gate was "And why the fuck does a university police department have a swat team?"
posted by emptythought at 7:48 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is it weird that my very first thought, right out the gate was "And why the fuck does a university police department have a swat team?"
There have been mass shootings in schools and universities in the US, which mandates having professionally armed people on campuses.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:52 PM on July 15, 2013
There have been mass shootings in schools and universities in the US, which mandates having professionally armed people on campuses.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:52 PM on July 15, 2013
There are campus police, and in the US when you have police you have SWAT.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on July 15, 2013
Thinks George Z was just frustrated and would be ok with him as part of neighborhood watch where she lived, because he's learned his lesson about going to far. He would be more responsible that anyone on this planet right now.
Yes, skating prison time for shooting an unarmed kid. That'll teach him!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
Yes, skating prison time for shooting an unarmed kid. That'll teach him!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
I was stupid enough to engage in a Facebook conversation about this case. Within three comments, the phrase "thug life" was used in reference to Martin as part of the commenter's justification for why it was okay to kill him.
Metafilter, we don't always agree, but I am so so so glad you're here and that you aren't Facebook.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 8:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [23 favorites]
Metafilter, we don't always agree, but I am so so so glad you're here and that you aren't Facebook.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 8:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [23 favorites]
I got "bad egg".
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on July 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
And I thought conservatives were against killing eggs.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:04 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Maybe the people here who find some merit in Zimmerman's actions legally and/or ethically, or at least the verdict at any rate, don't disagree with the arguments raised about racism and therefore there isn't much to argue about?
Maybe they believe racism doesn't play a role in criminal justice. Maybe they believe racism doesn't exist or exists only within personal attitudes and not wider social and institutional instantiations. If they don't speak up, we can't tell their position one way or another.
Given the history of racism in America, which is one in which racism is studiously denied and ignored by those who benefit from it, I'm inclined to read more disagreement than agreement when it comes to a discussion of the Zimmerman case that confines itself to legal questions while not mentioning, let along engaging with, agree or disagree, the viewpoint that our laws and their execution are fraught with the defects of racism.
By all means, if you agree with the systemic racism critique, please speak up, because such voices are needed if we are to counter racism. Given racism's continued pervasive though at times pernicious effects, and the reluctance with which government representatives address racism (note how Attorney General Holder tiptoes around term with the word "issues"), nevermind officials who ignore it or condone it, I think there is much to "argue" about, even if such argument is simply dragging racism out into the light when so many Americans pretend it doesn't exist or have the privilege of actually being ignorant of the full extent of racism's operation in our society.
By the way, if someone finds merit in the verdict that is what I meant by finding merit in Zimmerman's actions from a legal perspective.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:17 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe they believe racism doesn't play a role in criminal justice. Maybe they believe racism doesn't exist or exists only within personal attitudes and not wider social and institutional instantiations. If they don't speak up, we can't tell their position one way or another.
Given the history of racism in America, which is one in which racism is studiously denied and ignored by those who benefit from it, I'm inclined to read more disagreement than agreement when it comes to a discussion of the Zimmerman case that confines itself to legal questions while not mentioning, let along engaging with, agree or disagree, the viewpoint that our laws and their execution are fraught with the defects of racism.
By all means, if you agree with the systemic racism critique, please speak up, because such voices are needed if we are to counter racism. Given racism's continued pervasive though at times pernicious effects, and the reluctance with which government representatives address racism (note how Attorney General Holder tiptoes around term with the word "issues"), nevermind officials who ignore it or condone it, I think there is much to "argue" about, even if such argument is simply dragging racism out into the light when so many Americans pretend it doesn't exist or have the privilege of actually being ignorant of the full extent of racism's operation in our society.
By the way, if someone finds merit in the verdict that is what I meant by finding merit in Zimmerman's actions from a legal perspective.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:17 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
I was stupid enough to engage in a Facebook conversation about this case.
A family member posted a lovely article about how black racism killed Trayvon, written by a black conservative. You can search for the article and torture yourself if you like, I'm not linking to that crap.
But words were had with the relative, oh yes. It's amazing how differently people view this case.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
A family member posted a lovely article about how black racism killed Trayvon, written by a black conservative. You can search for the article and torture yourself if you like, I'm not linking to that crap.
But words were had with the relative, oh yes. It's amazing how differently people view this case.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
It's amazing how differently people view this case.
Many of the commenters I've seen around basically seem desperate to believe that they live in a just world, where terrible things only happen to bad people for good resins.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 8:34 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Many of the commenters I've seen around basically seem desperate to believe that they live in a just world, where terrible things only happen to bad people for good resins.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 8:34 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]
Sigh, I just got into one where an acquaintance (whom I'd previously thought was a pretty reasonable guy) tried to argue that Trayvon Martin "wasn't a cute little kid" and "could conceivably pose a physical threat" based on this picture. I probably should've not led off my reply with "What the actual fuck?" but, uh, I did.
posted by kagredon at 8:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 8:36 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
Also that picture has made me sad about this all over again, I'm going to go watch a movie and maybe play some video games. Something without guns, in both cases.
posted by kagredon at 8:41 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 8:41 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
A family member posted a lovely article about how black racism killed Trayvon, written by a black conservative. You can search for the article and torture yourself if you like, I'm not linking to that crap.
Yep. this has been popping up too suddenly.
posted by emptythought at 8:45 PM on July 15, 2013
Yep. this has been popping up too suddenly.
posted by emptythought at 8:45 PM on July 15, 2013
Whoever warned not to watch that juror interview, I should have listened to you. I can't believe this person was a juror. I mean I can, but it's like knowing Trayvon is gone vs looking at that picture of that poor boy laying deceased in the grass.
Lord have mercy. How on earth did this person get to be a juror. If you've read down this far you've probably listened to the interview already, but if you haven't, wait a couple of days or make sure you're not holding any spillable drinks or breakables.
It's all I can do to just take a deep breath right now.
posted by cashman at 8:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
Lord have mercy. How on earth did this person get to be a juror. If you've read down this far you've probably listened to the interview already, but if you haven't, wait a couple of days or make sure you're not holding any spillable drinks or breakables.
It's all I can do to just take a deep breath right now.
posted by cashman at 8:46 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
Trayvon Martin "wasn't a cute little kid" and "could conceivably pose a physical threat" based on this picture.
That's almost a simple personality test, that picture.
I see a young person who is making a Serious Face at the camera, an I Am Grownup Now, Yes? face. The sort young people make in the mirror because they are trying to figure out how to be adult. In that photo I see the young men that are my neighbors, and my coworkers, people I know and of whom I'm fond.
And then I think about the fact that Trayvon Martin will never make that slightly pensive face again. He'll never be able to look back at that picture in fifteen years and chuckle. I don't understand people who can look at that picture and not see how heartbreakingly young he was. It breaks my heart, anyway.
posted by winna at 8:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [25 favorites]
That's almost a simple personality test, that picture.
I see a young person who is making a Serious Face at the camera, an I Am Grownup Now, Yes? face. The sort young people make in the mirror because they are trying to figure out how to be adult. In that photo I see the young men that are my neighbors, and my coworkers, people I know and of whom I'm fond.
And then I think about the fact that Trayvon Martin will never make that slightly pensive face again. He'll never be able to look back at that picture in fifteen years and chuckle. I don't understand people who can look at that picture and not see how heartbreakingly young he was. It breaks my heart, anyway.
posted by winna at 8:58 PM on July 15, 2013 [25 favorites]
Yea everyone looks kinda serious in selfies. He looks like he's taking a serious selfie and its indeed cute.
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 PM on July 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Seems like SpaceGhostPurrp knew Martin and says he wasn't bad. Purrp is kinda erratic himself, but to me that means the kid wasn't the sort to attack people.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:01 PM on July 15, 2013
posted by Ad hominem at 9:01 PM on July 15, 2013
I was stupid enough to engage in a Facebook conversation about this case.
After two comments, I found myself looking in the mirror and asking myself why I am trying to carry a rational discussion with people who are okay with stalking and murdering a kid. I quickly deleted my two comments and will not look back. A few bad actors on Metafilter might strive to act on the depraved depth of a Facebook poster but they will rarely come close.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
After two comments, I found myself looking in the mirror and asking myself why I am trying to carry a rational discussion with people who are okay with stalking and murdering a kid. I quickly deleted my two comments and will not look back. A few bad actors on Metafilter might strive to act on the depraved depth of a Facebook poster but they will rarely come close.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 PM on July 15, 2013 [5 favorites]
John Oliver Slams Florida: ‘Just Because You’re Shaped Like A Dick Doesn’t Mean You Have To Act’ Like One
posted by homunculus at 9:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 9:21 PM on July 15, 2013 [8 favorites]
>>> In 2010, the University of Florida SWAT team shot a disabled graduate student from Ghana in the head with a semi-automatic assault rifle.
>> Is it weird that my very first thought, right out the gate was "And why the fuck does a university police department have a swat team?"
> There are campus police, and in the US when you have police you have SWAT.
And once you have a SWAT team, you are more likely to use it.
(& FWIW: right there with you on "why the fuck.")
posted by Westringia F. at 9:32 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
>> Is it weird that my very first thought, right out the gate was "And why the fuck does a university police department have a swat team?"
> There are campus police, and in the US when you have police you have SWAT.
And once you have a SWAT team, you are more likely to use it.
(& FWIW: right there with you on "why the fuck.")
posted by Westringia F. at 9:32 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
(playing a witness 911 call and questioning at the same time)
Serino: You’re that voice in the background?
Zimmerman: No, sir.
Serino: That’s you. Are you hearing yourself?
Zimmerman: Um, it doesn’t sound like me.
Serino: It’s you.
It's very frustrating that believing it was him was part of what got him off. I can see being unclear, but this was not a part of the case the jury should have relied on. Martin's dad said it wasn't Martin at one point. Zimmerman said it wasn't himself at one point. Everybody from each family said it was their family/friend in court. No way you can rely on that either way.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Serino: You’re that voice in the background?
Zimmerman: No, sir.
Serino: That’s you. Are you hearing yourself?
Zimmerman: Um, it doesn’t sound like me.
Serino: It’s you.
It's very frustrating that believing it was him was part of what got him off. I can see being unclear, but this was not a part of the case the jury should have relied on. Martin's dad said it wasn't Martin at one point. Zimmerman said it wasn't himself at one point. Everybody from each family said it was their family/friend in court. No way you can rely on that either way.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 PM on July 15, 2013 [2 favorites]
Stevie Wonder announces he will not perform in states with the Stand Your Ground Law, until abolished
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [26 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:54 PM on July 15, 2013 [26 favorites]
I am not a target of racism by this society, so no matter how angry I can get about it, I can't imagine that I feel the trauma viscerally in the same way. For anyone who is feeling it viscerally right now, I don't know if this will help, but... when I get extremely demoralized and enraged and terrified about sexism, feeling like there is just an endless flood of powerful people who would like to see me hurt or dead, it can help to feel the support of men who really get it. So if it would be the slightest bit of balm for anyone, I just want to point out modernnomad's link from earlier in the thread: http://wearenottrayvonmartin.tumblr.com/ A large proportion of it is white people and other races and nationalities forthrightly admitting the racism of this country and the ways they have unjustly benefitted from it. It is a way of trying to say "we do care about this and you" and send love. If anyone is feeling battered by the world, it might help a bit.
posted by cairdeas at 3:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 3:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Can someone link me to where the juror says "these people" and "their way of life"? Because holy shit, I can't even....
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:53 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:53 AM on July 16, 2013
There's a difference between following and chasing someone down.
He got out of the car with his gun, to follow Trayvon. He obviously understood there was potentially a chance for a violent encounter.
Without any evidence other than his "feeling", he got out of his car with his gun, while reporting Trayvon to the police and updating them with his location.
Sounds like chasing someone down to me.
posted by koakuma at 4:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
He got out of the car with his gun, to follow Trayvon. He obviously understood there was potentially a chance for a violent encounter.
Without any evidence other than his "feeling", he got out of his car with his gun, while reporting Trayvon to the police and updating them with his location.
Sounds like chasing someone down to me.
posted by koakuma at 4:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure what you are really getting at paulsc. What the logs show is the Martin call disconnected some time in the 7:16 minute. The first 911 call about a fight was 11 seconds into that minute. There is no four minute gap of any kind.
paulsc mis-stated the nature of the four-minute gap, but there is a four-minute gap that is suggestive. Zimmerman's car door can be heard slamming between 7:11 and 7:12 on his 911 call, around the point that he tells the dispatcher that Martin started running. At 7:13 he mentions he doesn't know where Martin is. He still hasn't seen Martin 30 sec later when he gets off the phone with the dispatcher.
The thing is that roughly from the place Martin started running, it's a short two-minute walk to his dad's place (like a few hundred feet). Yet there's a four-minute gap between when Zimmerman lost sight of him and 7:15/16ish, when Martin's girlfriend heard the scuffle and then her call dropped.
So whatever Martin did, he didn't walk or run straight home. Not that he was any obligation to do so, but this is just to put to rest the idea that, as a scared kid, the only possible thing he would have done would have been to go straight home.
Also, the place where the physical fight took place was around the area where Zimmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher, not close to Martin's dad's home, which suggests that Martin did double back (which he had time to do, and which is supported by the comment to his girlfriend that he was by his father's house at one point).
I think a person with no racist assumptions about black kids being violent thugs can look at this evidence and see that it fits with this part of Zimmerman's story. It seems clear that Martin did return to confront him after Zimmerman lost track of him (which Z did while still on the 911 call). I don't see any other logical accounting for the timing and the place where they met.
So it doesn't seem like either one of them was super SCARED of the other at this point. They were evidently each looking to find the other. How the physical fight started, we definitely don't know. And from my perspective, not sure it matters; they perhaps both had reason to feel threatened, Martin because this creepy-ass guy had been tracking him, and Zimmerman because in his mind, Martin may have just (inadvertently) confirmed his initial unjust assumptions, by approaching for a confrontation.
I find it hard to believe that either one of them, once the fight started, was literally incapable of rolling away and running like hell. My speculation is that it was Zimmerman yelling "help" (not "stop" btw as was said upthread), but that his main thing at that point might not have even been fear for his life, but determination to hang onto this "thug" until the cops got there, so he was yelling for neighbors to come and help him. Because by this point he really did have reason to believe (in his own mind) Martin was up to no good. And his injuries do seem to have been exaggerated.
Still, the fight when on for 40 seconds or so, and then the gun was there, and because it's part of Zimmerman's mentality, he pulls it out and shoots. [Sidenote: Reading that story TNC quoted makes me just about despair. I can't imagine that guy will get off on self-defense. But that doesn't change the fact that another kid is dead. And if there hadn't been a gun in that glove compartment, the dude would have just hit the gas pedal if he was scared, not fucking fired bullets in the kids' car. Absolutely terrifying.]
That part of it is actually the thing that is the most stomach-churningly awful, panic-inducing, mind-boggling, to me. Again, if there had been no gun, there would have just been a fist fight. And I wouldn't blame Trayvon Martin even if he did throw the first punch; I wouldn't blame my own 17yo son if he did the same after being trailed by a creep. A tragedy, of course, if it happened that way, is that by doing that Martin may have again confirmed to Zimmerman that he was a dangerous criminal, thus escalating the conflict in Zimmerman's head to one worthy of lethal force. (And also explaining why Zimmerman continued calling Martin "the suspect" in that offensive way while telling his story to police.)
I don't know, I think I typed this all out to show how I think reasonable people (i.e. the jury, and maybe other people in this thread like justinian and maybe yoink, who argued forever in the very first Trayvon Martin thread that things might be more complex than they originally appeared)--anyway, how I think that reasonable, non-racially-motivated people could arrive at the conclusion that Zimmerman's story was plausible in broad strokes, if exaggerated in part.
It's beyond doubt that Zimmerman started the whole thing and is morally culpable for the outcome. But people start tragic chains of events in motion all the time through stupidity or misplaced fear or negligence that don't rise to the level of criminality, even when the final outcome seems self-evidently criminal.
BTW I didn't get any of my analysis from any scary right-wing sites, but just by looking at timestamps and a map of the neighborhood. I also don't know if any of that timing stuff played into what the jury was told, as I didn't watch it.
posted by torticat at 5:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
paulsc mis-stated the nature of the four-minute gap, but there is a four-minute gap that is suggestive. Zimmerman's car door can be heard slamming between 7:11 and 7:12 on his 911 call, around the point that he tells the dispatcher that Martin started running. At 7:13 he mentions he doesn't know where Martin is. He still hasn't seen Martin 30 sec later when he gets off the phone with the dispatcher.
The thing is that roughly from the place Martin started running, it's a short two-minute walk to his dad's place (like a few hundred feet). Yet there's a four-minute gap between when Zimmerman lost sight of him and 7:15/16ish, when Martin's girlfriend heard the scuffle and then her call dropped.
So whatever Martin did, he didn't walk or run straight home. Not that he was any obligation to do so, but this is just to put to rest the idea that, as a scared kid, the only possible thing he would have done would have been to go straight home.
Also, the place where the physical fight took place was around the area where Zimmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher, not close to Martin's dad's home, which suggests that Martin did double back (which he had time to do, and which is supported by the comment to his girlfriend that he was by his father's house at one point).
I think a person with no racist assumptions about black kids being violent thugs can look at this evidence and see that it fits with this part of Zimmerman's story. It seems clear that Martin did return to confront him after Zimmerman lost track of him (which Z did while still on the 911 call). I don't see any other logical accounting for the timing and the place where they met.
So it doesn't seem like either one of them was super SCARED of the other at this point. They were evidently each looking to find the other. How the physical fight started, we definitely don't know. And from my perspective, not sure it matters; they perhaps both had reason to feel threatened, Martin because this creepy-ass guy had been tracking him, and Zimmerman because in his mind, Martin may have just (inadvertently) confirmed his initial unjust assumptions, by approaching for a confrontation.
I find it hard to believe that either one of them, once the fight started, was literally incapable of rolling away and running like hell. My speculation is that it was Zimmerman yelling "help" (not "stop" btw as was said upthread), but that his main thing at that point might not have even been fear for his life, but determination to hang onto this "thug" until the cops got there, so he was yelling for neighbors to come and help him. Because by this point he really did have reason to believe (in his own mind) Martin was up to no good. And his injuries do seem to have been exaggerated.
Still, the fight when on for 40 seconds or so, and then the gun was there, and because it's part of Zimmerman's mentality, he pulls it out and shoots. [Sidenote: Reading that story TNC quoted makes me just about despair. I can't imagine that guy will get off on self-defense. But that doesn't change the fact that another kid is dead. And if there hadn't been a gun in that glove compartment, the dude would have just hit the gas pedal if he was scared, not fucking fired bullets in the kids' car. Absolutely terrifying.]
That part of it is actually the thing that is the most stomach-churningly awful, panic-inducing, mind-boggling, to me. Again, if there had been no gun, there would have just been a fist fight. And I wouldn't blame Trayvon Martin even if he did throw the first punch; I wouldn't blame my own 17yo son if he did the same after being trailed by a creep. A tragedy, of course, if it happened that way, is that by doing that Martin may have again confirmed to Zimmerman that he was a dangerous criminal, thus escalating the conflict in Zimmerman's head to one worthy of lethal force. (And also explaining why Zimmerman continued calling Martin "the suspect" in that offensive way while telling his story to police.)
I don't know, I think I typed this all out to show how I think reasonable people (i.e. the jury, and maybe other people in this thread like justinian and maybe yoink, who argued forever in the very first Trayvon Martin thread that things might be more complex than they originally appeared)--anyway, how I think that reasonable, non-racially-motivated people could arrive at the conclusion that Zimmerman's story was plausible in broad strokes, if exaggerated in part.
It's beyond doubt that Zimmerman started the whole thing and is morally culpable for the outcome. But people start tragic chains of events in motion all the time through stupidity or misplaced fear or negligence that don't rise to the level of criminality, even when the final outcome seems self-evidently criminal.
BTW I didn't get any of my analysis from any scary right-wing sites, but just by looking at timestamps and a map of the neighborhood. I also don't know if any of that timing stuff played into what the jury was told, as I didn't watch it.
posted by torticat at 5:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Can someone link me to where the juror says "these people" and "their way of life"? Because holy shit, I can't even....
It's here.
Cooper asked the juror specifically about Jeantel’s “creepy-ass cracker” statement that drew wide attention during the trial. She said she thought it was “probably the truth” and that “Trayvon probably said that” but said she didn’t “think it’s really racial. I think it’s just every day life. The type of life that they live, and how they’re living, in the environment that they’re living in.” It's here.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:33 AM on July 16, 2013
It's here.
Cooper asked the juror specifically about Jeantel’s “creepy-ass cracker” statement that drew wide attention during the trial. She said she thought it was “probably the truth” and that “Trayvon probably said that” but said she didn’t “think it’s really racial. I think it’s just every day life. The type of life that they live, and how they’re living, in the environment that they’re living in.” It's here.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:33 AM on July 16, 2013
So whatever Martin did, he didn't walk or run straight home. Not that he was any obligation to do so, but this is just to put to rest the idea that, as a scared kid, the only possible thing he would have done would have been to go straight home.
If I thought I were being followed by some weirdo I would think twice about letting him know where I lived. I'm not sure what I would do in a no-retail-zone subdivision like that; here in the city, I would duck into a store or hop on a random bus or something like that - somewhere with other people.
posted by rtha at 6:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [13 favorites]
If I thought I were being followed by some weirdo I would think twice about letting him know where I lived. I'm not sure what I would do in a no-retail-zone subdivision like that; here in the city, I would duck into a store or hop on a random bus or something like that - somewhere with other people.
posted by rtha at 6:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [13 favorites]
William Saletan: You Are Not Trayvon Martin
Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.posted by BobbyVan at 6:27 AM on July 16, 2013
But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.
...
In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.
It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.
JUROR: I think the roles changed. I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one-over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.
...
JUROR: ....So whatever happened, I think the punch came, and then they ended up in front of the -- in back of the house. I don't think anybody knows
...
I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously.
COOPER: The prosecution tried to paint George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, overeager. Did you buy that?
JUROR: I think he's overeager to help people.
COOPER: So is that a yes or -- if he didn't go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable --
JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I -- I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he's learned a good lesson.
COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he's learned a lesson from all of this?
JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn't know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.
COOPER: And you have no -- do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?
JUROR: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time
This woman believes every word that George Zimmerman says.
We were wrong. The jury did not get the verdict right. This juror does not know how to weigh evidence or assess credibility. She believes that Zimmerman was in danger of his life, yet there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman. This is a bigger tragedy than I initially realized.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2013 [21 favorites]
...
JUROR: ....So whatever happened, I think the punch came, and then they ended up in front of the -- in back of the house. I don't think anybody knows
...
I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously.
COOPER: The prosecution tried to paint George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, overeager. Did you buy that?
JUROR: I think he's overeager to help people.
COOPER: So is that a yes or -- if he didn't go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable --
JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I -- I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he's learned a good lesson.
COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he's learned a lesson from all of this?
JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn't know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.
COOPER: And you have no -- do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?
JUROR: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time
This woman believes every word that George Zimmerman says.
We were wrong. The jury did not get the verdict right. This juror does not know how to weigh evidence or assess credibility. She believes that Zimmerman was in danger of his life, yet there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman. This is a bigger tragedy than I initially realized.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:39 AM on July 16, 2013 [21 favorites]
But that’s how Martin ended up dead.
No, Martin ended up dead because George Zimmerman intentionally shot and killed him.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case.
Stand Your Ground was invoked. Saletan is dead fucking wrong. The jurors discussed SYG.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:41 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
No, Martin ended up dead because George Zimmerman intentionally shot and killed him.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case.
Stand Your Ground was invoked. Saletan is dead fucking wrong. The jurors discussed SYG.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:41 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
William Saletan: You Are Not Trayvon Martin
That's easy for a white guy to say.
The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns.
Only if you want to ignore the history of, say, the last 250 years.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case.
Which is not true.
It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste
Hey guys, young black folks afraid of being chased by people with guns who at the very least look white are just as racist as white guys who think all young black folks are drugged-up criminals! Blame both sides equally! Reverse racism!
Don’t declare the whole justice system racist
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
or blame every gun death on guns
Good thing nobody was doing that, Strawman Bill.
or confuse acquittal with vindication
Maybe you should be directing this at all the conservatives engaging in victory laps?
And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire
Why in the hell are you addressing this bit towards the people who are upset that Martin was killed because he looked like a punk or a pervert?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
That's easy for a white guy to say.
The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns.
Only if you want to ignore the history of, say, the last 250 years.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case.
Which is not true.
It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste
Hey guys, young black folks afraid of being chased by people with guns who at the very least look white are just as racist as white guys who think all young black folks are drugged-up criminals! Blame both sides equally! Reverse racism!
Don’t declare the whole justice system racist
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
or blame every gun death on guns
Good thing nobody was doing that, Strawman Bill.
or confuse acquittal with vindication
Maybe you should be directing this at all the conservatives engaging in victory laps?
And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire
Why in the hell are you addressing this bit towards the people who are upset that Martin was killed because he looked like a punk or a pervert?
posted by zombieflanders at 6:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
TL;DR - William Saletan makes assumptions that invoke his privilege repeatedly, occasionally lies outright, and seems confused as to to his audience. If you thought he was an ass with problematic views about race before, he doesn't redeem himself.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
Saletan is a racist. Read any of his writings on race and IQ. He believes that black people are genetically inferior to white people. I really have no idea why its ok to link to him on issue of race.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [19 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [19 favorites]
If I thought I were being followed by some weirdo I would think twice about letting him know where I lived. I'm not sure what I would do in a no-retail-zone subdivision like that; here in the city, I would duck into a store or hop on a random bus or something like that - somewhere with other people.
Certainly, rtha, but Martin didn't apparently duck into anywhere. He told his girlfriend he was by his dad's house at one point, and then he ended up back in the area where Zimmerman had lost sight of him and ended his 911 call. Zimmerman really didn't move far at all after getting off the 911 call. I even think his "ok" response to the dispatcher makes some sense--in response to "we don't need you to follow him," and his later claim, explaining that, that he wasn't "following" Martin but "going in his direction," i.e. trying to figure out which direction he'd gone while waiting for the police.
And that's because the altercation took place only a few yards from where Zimmerman lost sight of Martin while on the 911 call, which in turn was only a few yards from Zimmerman's truck. The fight took place near a T in the path, where you might expect Zimmerman to have gone to see which of two directions Martin had taken. And actually according to the 911 call, he seems to have thought Martin was headed toward the exit out of the neighborhood, and not down the path toward his father's at all.
I think you have to look at the map for it to make sense, but Martin had to have returned back toward Zimmerman. He had to have, because that's where the fight took place.
I sound like a Zimmerman apologist, which I'm not, on a personal level; he seems like a racist blowhard, and he killed a kid. But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location, at least up to the point of the fight, and I actually can't think of a plausible alternative explanation.
posted by torticat at 6:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Certainly, rtha, but Martin didn't apparently duck into anywhere. He told his girlfriend he was by his dad's house at one point, and then he ended up back in the area where Zimmerman had lost sight of him and ended his 911 call. Zimmerman really didn't move far at all after getting off the 911 call. I even think his "ok" response to the dispatcher makes some sense--in response to "we don't need you to follow him," and his later claim, explaining that, that he wasn't "following" Martin but "going in his direction," i.e. trying to figure out which direction he'd gone while waiting for the police.
And that's because the altercation took place only a few yards from where Zimmerman lost sight of Martin while on the 911 call, which in turn was only a few yards from Zimmerman's truck. The fight took place near a T in the path, where you might expect Zimmerman to have gone to see which of two directions Martin had taken. And actually according to the 911 call, he seems to have thought Martin was headed toward the exit out of the neighborhood, and not down the path toward his father's at all.
I think you have to look at the map for it to make sense, but Martin had to have returned back toward Zimmerman. He had to have, because that's where the fight took place.
I sound like a Zimmerman apologist, which I'm not, on a personal level; he seems like a racist blowhard, and he killed a kid. But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location, at least up to the point of the fight, and I actually can't think of a plausible alternative explanation.
posted by torticat at 6:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Lawrence D. Bobo: Why the Zimmerman Jury Failed Us
America is racist at its core. I used to doubt this simplistic claim. Today I cannot. The murder of Trayvon Martin demands total, simple, honesty. A jury in Florida failed us. We have not seen a moral failure this grave since a similarly all-white jury in Simi Valley, Calif., in 1992 acquitted the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King.
Writing in the same year as that ill-fated verdict, the distinguished civil rights lawyer Derrick Bell declared that "racism is an integral, permanent and indestructible component of this society." In most circumstances, I treat this declaration as a foil: a claim to be slowly picked apart as, at best, too easy and, at worst, deeply unfair and wrong. Not today.
The most elemental facts of this case will never change. A teenager went out to buy Skittles and iced tea. At some point, he was confronted by a man with a gun who killed him. There is no universe I understand where this can be declared a noncriminal act. Not in a sane, just and racism-free universe.
There is only one universe in which such a judgment can happen. It is the same universe in which jurors can watch slow-motion video of four armed police officers beating a man and conclude that the man being beaten dictated everything that happened.
Two features of this universe loom large. First, it requires immersion in a culture of contempt, derision and at bottom, profound dehumanization of African Americans, particularly black men. You have to be well-prepared to believe the very worst about black people in order to reach such a conclusion. In particular, you have to proceed as if that person constituted a different, lesser former of humanity. Without that deep-rooted bias in the American cultural fabric, we would find that people would readily bring a powerful sense of basic shared human insight and empathy to the Trayvon-Zimmerman encounter.
...
The path ahead is not an easy one. Trayvon's killing demands justice. The need to bear witness here is clear. A decision that is the living embodiment of racism in our body politic happened, even if not a single member of that jury understood themselves as acting in such a way (I'm quite sure they didn't). That is the power of cultural racism: When it is this deeply embedded in our basic cultural toolkit, it need not be named or even consciously embraced to work its ill effects.
Lots of us are disappointed and angry right now. Seething bitterness, however, is not a solution, nor is violence or striking out. The way forward is one of hard work on social and political organizing, as well as of forcing honest and painful discussions, and a passionate insistence on change and justice. This country still has a serious problem with racism. Let's stop pretending this isn't the case or that it is all somehow healing itself. The second murder of Trayvon Martin compels this conclusion.
posted by eunoia at 6:58 AM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
America is racist at its core. I used to doubt this simplistic claim. Today I cannot. The murder of Trayvon Martin demands total, simple, honesty. A jury in Florida failed us. We have not seen a moral failure this grave since a similarly all-white jury in Simi Valley, Calif., in 1992 acquitted the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King.
Writing in the same year as that ill-fated verdict, the distinguished civil rights lawyer Derrick Bell declared that "racism is an integral, permanent and indestructible component of this society." In most circumstances, I treat this declaration as a foil: a claim to be slowly picked apart as, at best, too easy and, at worst, deeply unfair and wrong. Not today.
The most elemental facts of this case will never change. A teenager went out to buy Skittles and iced tea. At some point, he was confronted by a man with a gun who killed him. There is no universe I understand where this can be declared a noncriminal act. Not in a sane, just and racism-free universe.
There is only one universe in which such a judgment can happen. It is the same universe in which jurors can watch slow-motion video of four armed police officers beating a man and conclude that the man being beaten dictated everything that happened.
Two features of this universe loom large. First, it requires immersion in a culture of contempt, derision and at bottom, profound dehumanization of African Americans, particularly black men. You have to be well-prepared to believe the very worst about black people in order to reach such a conclusion. In particular, you have to proceed as if that person constituted a different, lesser former of humanity. Without that deep-rooted bias in the American cultural fabric, we would find that people would readily bring a powerful sense of basic shared human insight and empathy to the Trayvon-Zimmerman encounter.
...
The path ahead is not an easy one. Trayvon's killing demands justice. The need to bear witness here is clear. A decision that is the living embodiment of racism in our body politic happened, even if not a single member of that jury understood themselves as acting in such a way (I'm quite sure they didn't). That is the power of cultural racism: When it is this deeply embedded in our basic cultural toolkit, it need not be named or even consciously embraced to work its ill effects.
Lots of us are disappointed and angry right now. Seething bitterness, however, is not a solution, nor is violence or striking out. The way forward is one of hard work on social and political organizing, as well as of forcing honest and painful discussions, and a passionate insistence on change and justice. This country still has a serious problem with racism. Let's stop pretending this isn't the case or that it is all somehow healing itself. The second murder of Trayvon Martin compels this conclusion.
posted by eunoia at 6:58 AM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
If you thought he was an ass with problematic views about race before, he doesn't redeem himself.
Well that's a pretty misleading link, given that he concludes his piece with, "Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory." (emphasis mine)
His final piece in the series was titled "Regrets" and concludes with this sentence: "I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that."
TL;DR -- those knee-jerk accusations of racism pretty much prove the point Saletan was making about this whole horrible affair and its aftermath.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:59 AM on July 16, 2013
Well that's a pretty misleading link, given that he concludes his piece with, "Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory." (emphasis mine)
His final piece in the series was titled "Regrets" and concludes with this sentence: "I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that."
TL;DR -- those knee-jerk accusations of racism pretty much prove the point Saletan was making about this whole horrible affair and its aftermath.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:59 AM on July 16, 2013
But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location
Except that there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman, thus proving that his life was not threatened. That is kind of a big thing to leave out, dontcha think?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:59 AM on July 16, 2013
Except that there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman, thus proving that his life was not threatened. That is kind of a big thing to leave out, dontcha think?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:59 AM on July 16, 2013
knee-jerk? Are you kidding me? Zimmerman was accused of racism because he thought a black kid was a criminal because he was 'acting suspicious' (i.e., walking with a hoodie up and a bag of skittles in his hand, and talking on the phone) and intentionally shot and killed him.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
My "knee-jerk" comment was in reference to the cat-like reflexive smear of Saletan as a racist in two successive comments here in this thread.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:05 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by BobbyVan at 7:05 AM on July 16, 2013
I can only speak for myself, but my calling Saletan a racist is not a knee-jerk response at all. I'm curious as to how you surmised that. I read his writings, and many commentary no his views of race, and I assure you that my conclusion that Saletan is a racist, and thus not worth linking to here on MetaFilter, is not a knee-jerk reaction, but a conclusion arrived at after reading a bunch of his shit.
Knee-jerk reactions aren't simply quick reactions, they're reflexive reactions without thought.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:08 AM on July 16, 2013 [10 favorites]
Knee-jerk reactions aren't simply quick reactions, they're reflexive reactions without thought.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:08 AM on July 16, 2013 [10 favorites]
I just heard the Saletan piece read on Slate Voice while making lunch and got BINGO. It reaked of privilege and arrogance and made me burn my grilled cheese while I stood frozen in disbelief. Then the last line, total prizewinner:
"And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire."
Talk about twisting* the narrative around. I'll remember his sage advice next time I'm waving my gun around the funhouse mirrors of Bizarroland that he apparently lives in.
*or dare I say perverting.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:14 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
"And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire."
Talk about twisting* the narrative around. I'll remember his sage advice next time I'm waving my gun around the funhouse mirrors of Bizarroland that he apparently lives in.
*or dare I say perverting.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:14 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Well that's a pretty misleading link, given that he concludes his piece with, "Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory." (emphasis mine)
His final piece in the series was titled "Regrets" and concludes with this sentence: "I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that."
And yet, in the same link you provided, he says this:
And yet, they were neither knee-jerk (I'm fully aware of Saletan's shitty conclusions) nor do they prove any of his points. He disregarded historical and statistical evidence of widespread institutional racism and made black perceptions of their environment and white perceptions of blacks equally problematic. Seems like par for the course in his case.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
His final piece in the series was titled "Regrets" and concludes with this sentence: "I was negligent in failing to research and report this. I'm sorry. I owe you better than that."
And yet, in the same link you provided, he says this:
I wrote about the possibility of genetic IQ differences among races. I wanted to discuss whether egalitarianism could survive if this scenario, raised last month by James Watson, turned out to be true. I thought it was important to lay out the scenario's plausibility.And that last sentence? That apology was in reference to not researching the fact that one of the people on whose argument he was depending on was flagrantly racist, not that he didn't believe that race played a part. Indeed, the piece that you placed emphasis on ends thusly:
[...]
I think it's misleading to dismiss the scenario, as some officials have done in response to Watson.
When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories.TL;DR -- those knee-jerk accusations of racism pretty much prove the point Saletan was making about this whole horrible affair and its aftermath.
And yet, they were neither knee-jerk (I'm fully aware of Saletan's shitty conclusions) nor do they prove any of his points. He disregarded historical and statistical evidence of widespread institutional racism and made black perceptions of their environment and white perceptions of blacks equally problematic. Seems like par for the course in his case.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
His final piece in the series was titled "Regrets"
and is full of 'if it turns out to be true' that black people are dumb.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
and is full of 'if it turns out to be true' that black people are dumb.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
. I don't see any other logical accounting for the timing and the place where they met.
How about a logical explanation about why Martin would attack Zimmerman without provocation BEFORE you try to come up with a logical accounting for timing and place?
I mean, if you care about logic, how can you accept Zimmerman's "The Negro Went Crazy" framing in the first place?
posted by mikelieman at 7:17 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
How about a logical explanation about why Martin would attack Zimmerman without provocation BEFORE you try to come up with a logical accounting for timing and place?
I mean, if you care about logic, how can you accept Zimmerman's "The Negro Went Crazy" framing in the first place?
posted by mikelieman at 7:17 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location
Except that there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman, thus proving that his life was not threatened. That is kind of a big thing to leave out, dontcha think?
MisantropicPainforest, don't truncate my sentence to make it say something it doesn't. I said,
"But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location, at least up to the point of the fight."
And if you think I'm wrong, suggest a plausible alternative. Seriously, try it, I am genuinely curious.
I also said, by the way, that I think Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries, so no, I don't think I left that out.
posted by torticat at 7:18 AM on July 16, 2013
Except that there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman, thus proving that his life was not threatened. That is kind of a big thing to leave out, dontcha think?
MisantropicPainforest, don't truncate my sentence to make it say something it doesn't. I said,
"But I can see that his story does hold up based on timing and location, at least up to the point of the fight."
And if you think I'm wrong, suggest a plausible alternative. Seriously, try it, I am genuinely curious.
I also said, by the way, that I think Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries, so no, I don't think I left that out.
posted by torticat at 7:18 AM on July 16, 2013
http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-with-911-call-timing.jpg
According to this map, Martin did not move toward Zimmerman. And Martin was heading toward the direction of his house the entire time. If that map is wrong, please present a more accurate one.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:29 AM on July 16, 2013
According to this map, Martin did not move toward Zimmerman. And Martin was heading toward the direction of his house the entire time. If that map is wrong, please present a more accurate one.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:29 AM on July 16, 2013
Cat-like?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 7:29 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 7:29 AM on July 16, 2013
BobbyVan, keep in mind that Saletan is professionally obligated to not take a side against conservatives as a requirement of his job. His articles exist to serve an audience looking for a "gee, both sides are wrong and they need to meet in the middle that I believe for everything to work out."
Like, we already know it is possible to make an argument like that. It is still a stupid argument.
posted by deanc at 7:30 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Like, we already know it is possible to make an argument like that. It is still a stupid argument.
posted by deanc at 7:30 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Except that there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman, thus proving that his life was not threatened.
Proof that his life was not threatened is not proof that he did not have a reasonable belief that his life was not threatened. The latter is what must be proven.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:31 AM on July 16, 2013
Proof that his life was not threatened is not proof that he did not have a reasonable belief that his life was not threatened. The latter is what must be proven.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:31 AM on July 16, 2013
Cat-like?
He's obviously one of those heretics who believe in fast zombies.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:31 AM on July 16, 2013
He's obviously one of those heretics who believe in fast zombies.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:31 AM on July 16, 2013
Proof that his life was not threatened is not proof that he did not have a reasonable belief that his life was not threatened. The latter is what must be proven.
That's easy. Zimmerman had no significant injuries, and Martin was unarmed. So there was no way he could have threatened Zimmerman's life, and thus no way that Zimmerman could have a reasonable belief that his life was threatened.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:32 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
That's easy. Zimmerman had no significant injuries, and Martin was unarmed. So there was no way he could have threatened Zimmerman's life, and thus no way that Zimmerman could have a reasonable belief that his life was threatened.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:32 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
I mean, if you care about logic, how can you accept Zimmerman's "The Negro Went Crazy" framing in the first place?posted by mikelieman
Does anyone have any good links to the case so we all can get a better idea about what was recorded as what to happened? because NONE of us were there.
I guess Stevie Wonder won't be playing in Detriot anytime soon.
America is racist at its core. I used to doubt this simplistic claim. Today I cannot.
Really, do you think so, you offer your feelings and some stuff about rodney king. First, this happened in Florida, that state procecutes not "america".
I offer you this read, read it and decide if the problem is larger or less color coated then you think or is it worse then we ever even dreamed.
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 AM on July 16, 2013
Does anyone have any good links to the case so we all can get a better idea about what was recorded as what to happened? because NONE of us were there.
I guess Stevie Wonder won't be playing in Detriot anytime soon.
America is racist at its core. I used to doubt this simplistic claim. Today I cannot.
Really, do you think so, you offer your feelings and some stuff about rodney king. First, this happened in Florida, that state procecutes not "america".
I offer you this read, read it and decide if the problem is larger or less color coated then you think or is it worse then we ever even dreamed.
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 AM on July 16, 2013
he did not have a reasonable belief that his life was not threatened.
Show me ONE REASONABLE BELIEF Zimmerman did have that night, and then we can talk about how his judgement in pulling the trigger was reasonable.
Was his belief that Trayvon Martin was "up to no good" reasonable?
Was his belief that Tryavon Martin was "on drugs or something" reasonable?
Was his decision to leave his vehicle reasonable?
Was his decision to attempt to hold Martin prisoner at gunpoint reasonable?
posted by mikelieman at 7:37 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
Show me ONE REASONABLE BELIEF Zimmerman did have that night, and then we can talk about how his judgement in pulling the trigger was reasonable.
Was his belief that Trayvon Martin was "up to no good" reasonable?
Was his belief that Tryavon Martin was "on drugs or something" reasonable?
Was his decision to leave his vehicle reasonable?
Was his decision to attempt to hold Martin prisoner at gunpoint reasonable?
posted by mikelieman at 7:37 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
there was no way he could have threatened Zimmerman's life, and thus no way that Zimmerman could have a reasonable belief that his life was threatened
That does not follow.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:37 AM on July 16, 2013
That does not follow.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:37 AM on July 16, 2013
Does anyone have any good links to the case so we all can get a better idea about what was recorded as what to happened? because NONE of us were there.
So, after building your hypothesis on Zimmerman's claims, when Zimmerman's fundamental credibility in those claims is questioned, there's this handwavey -- "NONE of us were there" thing?
Is that your final answer or would you like to use a lifeline?
posted by mikelieman at 7:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
So, after building your hypothesis on Zimmerman's claims, when Zimmerman's fundamental credibility in those claims is questioned, there's this handwavey -- "NONE of us were there" thing?
Is that your final answer or would you like to use a lifeline?
posted by mikelieman at 7:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
How about a logical explanation about why Martin would attack Zimmerman without provocation BEFORE you try to come up with a logical accounting for timing and place?
Well, I would suggest he had been provoked, having been tailed in a car by this apparently suspicious-minded, interfering creep. I can see how that would piss a person off, and I said I wouldn't fault my son if he reacted aggressively to something like that. Well, I would fault him for being freaking stupid for walking into danger that way, but teenage boys ARE stupid sometimes. I mean as I said I HAVE a 17yo son.
But look, we can't read either of their minds, but we CAN know the timing and locations, so that's why I start with that. If it is clear that Martin returned back toward where he'd last seen Zimmerman, then you can ask why he would do that? I would think it would suggest he was feeling fightish rather than flightish. But if you want to say it's impossible that is how it happened, you have to explain why else Martin would have doubled back. Or, failing that, how he physically got where he was when the fight happened.
posted by torticat at 7:39 AM on July 16, 2013
Well, I would suggest he had been provoked, having been tailed in a car by this apparently suspicious-minded, interfering creep. I can see how that would piss a person off, and I said I wouldn't fault my son if he reacted aggressively to something like that. Well, I would fault him for being freaking stupid for walking into danger that way, but teenage boys ARE stupid sometimes. I mean as I said I HAVE a 17yo son.
But look, we can't read either of their minds, but we CAN know the timing and locations, so that's why I start with that. If it is clear that Martin returned back toward where he'd last seen Zimmerman, then you can ask why he would do that? I would think it would suggest he was feeling fightish rather than flightish. But if you want to say it's impossible that is how it happened, you have to explain why else Martin would have doubled back. Or, failing that, how he physically got where he was when the fight happened.
posted by torticat at 7:39 AM on July 16, 2013
Is "Trayvon Martin Just Snapped" REALLY MORE LOGICAL than "Wannabe Cop Tried To Unlawfully Detain Martin, and Martin lawfully resisted"?
I mean, come on now. Once you discount Zimmerman's claims, isn't that really the only scenario that MAKES ANY SENSE.
I *WILL NOT* accept the "Crazy Negro Theory"...
posted by mikelieman at 7:41 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
I mean, come on now. Once you discount Zimmerman's claims, isn't that really the only scenario that MAKES ANY SENSE.
I *WILL NOT* accept the "Crazy Negro Theory"...
posted by mikelieman at 7:41 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
That does not follow.
Why? How can the belief that someone is threatening my life be reasonable, if there is no way that the person is capable of threatening my life?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:41 AM on July 16, 2013
Why? How can the belief that someone is threatening my life be reasonable, if there is no way that the person is capable of threatening my life?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:41 AM on July 16, 2013
This juror does not know how to weigh evidence or assess credibility. She believes that Zimmerman was in danger of his life, yet there were no significant injuries to Zimmerman.She didn't say (at least not in what you quoted her as saying) that she believes that Zimmerman was in danger of his life. She said she believes that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of his life. I think this is an important legal distinction, isn't it? Self defense is applicable for someone in fear for his life, right? As opposed to someone whose life is in danger.
And I don't find it implausible that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. I think the following is at least plausible:
He got out of the car to prove himself to be a real man, courage artificially bolstered by the gun he was carrying. And when he finally tracked Martin down, and things were up close and personal, to his surprise he found his artificial courage suddenly gone. He's found himself in over his head, false bravado replaced completely by fear and cowardice. And there's what he believed to be a violent, savage punk in his face. Who knows what the violent, savage punk is going to do? Oh shit, he's coming at me. I have to defend myself.
I want to be clear in no uncertain terms that I am absolutely not excusing him, and I am not saying his life was in danger, or that he should have been in fear for his life. I'm only saying that I don't think it's implausible that he believed he was in fear for his life, due to his warped worldview.
posted by Flunkie at 7:41 AM on July 16, 2013
Show me ONE REASONABLE BELIEF Zimmerman did have that night, and then we can talk about how his judgement in pulling the trigger was reasonable.
You probably should stop being so harsh with people who basically agree with you.
Was his belief that Trayvon Martin was "up to no good" reasonable?
Was his belief that Tryavon Martin was "on drugs or something" reasonable?
Was his decision to leave his vehicle reasonable?
Was his decision to attempt to hold Martin prisoner at gunpoint reasonable?
No to all of these. My take on it is basically that even if his belief that he was being killed was reasonable, he forfeited his claim to self-defense when he started the fight by getting out of his car, thereby making himself the aggressor.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
You probably should stop being so harsh with people who basically agree with you.
Was his belief that Trayvon Martin was "up to no good" reasonable?
Was his belief that Tryavon Martin was "on drugs or something" reasonable?
Was his decision to leave his vehicle reasonable?
Was his decision to attempt to hold Martin prisoner at gunpoint reasonable?
No to all of these. My take on it is basically that even if his belief that he was being killed was reasonable, he forfeited his claim to self-defense when he started the fight by getting out of his car, thereby making himself the aggressor.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
zombieflanders, you quote this line from Saletan as if it somehow proves he is a racist.
The nexus between race and IQ is a touchy, taboo-laden subject for sure, but I still don't think this assertion by MisanthropicPainforest ("He believes that black people are genetically inferior to white people.") is supported by anything you all have quoted so far.
About the worst you can say about Saletan is that he is agnostic about the science. He says he "is not an expert" but that it would be "misleading to dismiss" the potential linkage between race and IQ. His final words on the linkage are these:
On preview, "cat-like" was just meant to be rhetorical flair around the word "reflex."
posted by BobbyVan at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013
When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories.Doesn't prima facie mean "at first blush"? It's not a final conclusion, and it's not dispositive. It's an unexamined reaction. You might even call it a self-consciously "knee-jerk" supposition. Accepting a premise arguendo does not mean you will ultimately agree with it, only that you're granting its hypothetical truth to advance a line of thought.
The nexus between race and IQ is a touchy, taboo-laden subject for sure, but I still don't think this assertion by MisanthropicPainforest ("He believes that black people are genetically inferior to white people.") is supported by anything you all have quoted so far.
About the worst you can say about Saletan is that he is agnostic about the science. He says he "is not an expert" but that it would be "misleading to dismiss" the potential linkage between race and IQ. His final words on the linkage are these:
As to whether it's true, you'll have to judge the evidence for yourself. Every responsible scholar I know says we should wait many years before drawing conclusions.I didn't want to make this a referendum on Saletan's personal beliefs, but to assert that a person is a racist but that the evidence is "not worth linking to here on MetaFilter" is about the cheapest and laziest ad hominem I've seen in quite some time.
On preview, "cat-like" was just meant to be rhetorical flair around the word "reflex."
posted by BobbyVan at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013
If it is clear that Martin returned back toward where he'd last seen Zimmerman, then you can ask why he would do that?
This is not at all clear and if you want to make it clear please present evidence.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013
This is not at all clear and if you want to make it clear please present evidence.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:42 AM on July 16, 2013
I'm only saying that I don't think it's implausible that he believed he was in fear for his life, due to his warped worldview.
I agree 100%, and the important legal distinction is whether this belief was reasonable.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:43 AM on July 16, 2013
I agree 100%, and the important legal distinction is whether this belief was reasonable.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:43 AM on July 16, 2013
So there was no way he could have threatened Zimmerman's life, and thus no way that Zimmerman could have a reasonable belief that his life was threatened.
Well, that's not necessarily true though. If a convenience store is being held up by someone with an unloaded gun, the clerk's life is not actually in danger but they pretty damn well will have a reasonable belief thereto. Not that I think Zimmerman is in the position of the clerk, he's closer to a robber who, when the clerk pulls out the gun from under the counter, shoots because he now has a reasonable fear for his life.
The problem, of course, being that the way the laws seem to be written in Florida and elsewhere, any negative encounter on the street legally justifies an escalation by the threatened party, which justifies an escalation by the (now also threatened) other party, the natural result of which is a full on physical fight or, if one or both parties are armed, shooting.
I don't see how this loophole could be closed short of bringing back the common-law duty to retreat.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:44 AM on July 16, 2013
Well, that's not necessarily true though. If a convenience store is being held up by someone with an unloaded gun, the clerk's life is not actually in danger but they pretty damn well will have a reasonable belief thereto. Not that I think Zimmerman is in the position of the clerk, he's closer to a robber who, when the clerk pulls out the gun from under the counter, shoots because he now has a reasonable fear for his life.
The problem, of course, being that the way the laws seem to be written in Florida and elsewhere, any negative encounter on the street legally justifies an escalation by the threatened party, which justifies an escalation by the (now also threatened) other party, the natural result of which is a full on physical fight or, if one or both parties are armed, shooting.
I don't see how this loophole could be closed short of bringing back the common-law duty to retreat.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:44 AM on July 16, 2013
Mod note: It would be great, really terrific, if we could not go down the race/IQ rabbit hole here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:45 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:45 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
How can the belief that someone is threatening my life be reasonable, if there is no way that the person is capable of threatening my life?
Last I checked, Zimmerman isn't a doctor or paramedic or anything like that, so why do you expect him to be an expert about whether he is being killed?
Someone feels a pain in his left arm, and so drives himself to the emergency room. The pain turns out to have been from a completely non-lethal condition. According to you, he never has a reasonable belief that he might be dying.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:46 AM on July 16, 2013
Last I checked, Zimmerman isn't a doctor or paramedic or anything like that, so why do you expect him to be an expert about whether he is being killed?
Someone feels a pain in his left arm, and so drives himself to the emergency room. The pain turns out to have been from a completely non-lethal condition. According to you, he never has a reasonable belief that he might be dying.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:46 AM on July 16, 2013
good point tivalasvegas,
I guess I should have added a caveat, about the possibility of deception. Which of course is not relevant in this case.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:47 AM on July 16, 2013
I guess I should have added a caveat, about the possibility of deception. Which of course is not relevant in this case.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:47 AM on July 16, 2013
My take on it is basically that even if his belief that he was being killed was reasonable, he forfeited his claim to self-defense when he started the fight by getting out of his car, thereby making himself the aggressor.
I get that, but we can spend 3000 messages arguing about who 'provoked it' or was 'the aggressor', when all that collapses into irrelevancy once we all accept that Zimmerman's PERCEPTIONS were at fault, and no reasonable person would have come to the same conclusions. Once it's mapped out "Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, "Am in in immanent danger of gbh or death?" WRONG DECISION!
Which, of course, puts the responsibility back where it belongs, but without engaging those who might use the ambiguity to confuse the issue ( such as the Defense Attorneys, although the softball "Amadou Diallo" prosecution and jury instructions surely helped.... )
There's so much damned frustration accreting around all this, I find it hard to stay focused on the root cause, and not just flip the fuck out and run around screaming in frustration. You are correct, and I am sorry.
posted by mikelieman at 7:48 AM on July 16, 2013
I get that, but we can spend 3000 messages arguing about who 'provoked it' or was 'the aggressor', when all that collapses into irrelevancy once we all accept that Zimmerman's PERCEPTIONS were at fault, and no reasonable person would have come to the same conclusions. Once it's mapped out "Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, Wrong decision, "Am in in immanent danger of gbh or death?" WRONG DECISION!
Which, of course, puts the responsibility back where it belongs, but without engaging those who might use the ambiguity to confuse the issue ( such as the Defense Attorneys, although the softball "Amadou Diallo" prosecution and jury instructions surely helped.... )
There's so much damned frustration accreting around all this, I find it hard to stay focused on the root cause, and not just flip the fuck out and run around screaming in frustration. You are correct, and I am sorry.
posted by mikelieman at 7:48 AM on July 16, 2013
Last I checked, Zimmerman isn't a doctor or paramedic or anything like that, so why do you expect him to be an expert about whether he is being killed
He wasn't even being hurt.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
He wasn't even being hurt.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
He wasn't even being hurt.
That is not supported by available evidence.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:52 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
That is not supported by available evidence.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:52 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
The available 'evidence' was collected the next day.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:54 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:54 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Zimmerman was being hurt. The question is whether he was being hurt enough to justify killing someone not whether he was being hurt. Hell, his nose was broken. Some people posit that he broke it himself to make his defense stand up but once you go down that rabbit hole there's not much to talk about.
posted by Justinian at 7:55 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by Justinian at 7:55 AM on July 16, 2013
Oh, we are in the rabbit hole.
posted by Justinian at 7:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
What evidence is there that Travyon Martin is personally, factually responsible for the injuries claimed by Zimmerman. Not one witness identified either of the participants in the scuffle positively, and the whole "Lack of Zimmerman DNA on Martin" thing doesn't support Zimmerman's claims.
Again, since Zimmerman's fear wasn't REASONABLE, it's irrelevant. None of his decision that night were reasonable. I wonder if he was taking too much of the amphetamine he was using to treat the ADD or something? Sanford PD really should have made him give blood that night.
Because if there's one person who was acting suspicious that night, it's Zimmerman.
posted by mikelieman at 7:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Again, since Zimmerman's fear wasn't REASONABLE, it's irrelevant. None of his decision that night were reasonable. I wonder if he was taking too much of the amphetamine he was using to treat the ADD or something? Sanford PD really should have made him give blood that night.
Because if there's one person who was acting suspicious that night, it's Zimmerman.
posted by mikelieman at 7:56 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I didn't want to make this a referendum on Saletan's personal beliefs, but to assert that a person is a racist but that the evidence is "not worth linking to here on MetaFilter" is about the cheapest and laziest ad hominem I've seen in quite some time.
I wasn't the one who said that, and very much thought it was worth linking, which is why I did so. Anyway, per jessamyn's request, I'm only going to say that Saletan has been inclined to put forward hypotheses on race based on problematic data that came to problematic conclusions, and that has apparently not changed, since it was certainly on display in his piece about this case. I mean, you're welcome to believe, as he seems to do, that the history of race in this country has nothing to do with how black people live every minute of their waking lives, or that our justice system is not racist to the core (starting with the documents of the Founders), or that neither antagonistic racial interactions or laws had anything to do with this case. Just don't tell us that, whenever someone says that or supports it, there's no racism or white privilege or involved, especially when they've been involved in it before. The constant invoking of arguments like Saletan's is both horrifying and saddening, and promulgating it without comment or analysis really isn't doing anything but putting ignorance on display.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
I wasn't the one who said that, and very much thought it was worth linking, which is why I did so. Anyway, per jessamyn's request, I'm only going to say that Saletan has been inclined to put forward hypotheses on race based on problematic data that came to problematic conclusions, and that has apparently not changed, since it was certainly on display in his piece about this case. I mean, you're welcome to believe, as he seems to do, that the history of race in this country has nothing to do with how black people live every minute of their waking lives, or that our justice system is not racist to the core (starting with the documents of the Founders), or that neither antagonistic racial interactions or laws had anything to do with this case. Just don't tell us that, whenever someone says that or supports it, there's no racism or white privilege or involved, especially when they've been involved in it before. The constant invoking of arguments like Saletan's is both horrifying and saddening, and promulgating it without comment or analysis really isn't doing anything but putting ignorance on display.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman was being hurt, but it's his own damn fault because he started it. You don't get to pick fights with people and then shoot them when it turns out they're stronger than you.
People engaged in unlawful activities against other people don't have the right to claim self-defense for use of force against those same people.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:00 AM on July 16, 2013
People engaged in unlawful activities against other people don't have the right to claim self-defense for use of force against those same people.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:00 AM on July 16, 2013
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman's fear is reasonable? If I encountered a cogent argument as to why Zimmerman was right to fear that his life was threatened, I would do my best to consider it carefully. But so far, in this thread, or in the others, no one has offered an explanation or scenario that accords with the evidence, and that shows how Zimmerman could reasonably believe his life was threatened.
And that is the crux of the issue: Was Zimmerman justified in feeling that his life was in danger?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:01 AM on July 16, 2013
And that is the crux of the issue: Was Zimmerman justified in feeling that his life was in danger?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:01 AM on July 16, 2013
Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice
posted by Artw at 8:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
As an aside, I think that putting forward hypotheses ON ANYTHING based on problematic data that comes to problematic conclusions is the norm these days, at least outside of narrow disciplines. Turn on the tv with an IQ over 100 and the most basic understanding of the scientific method, and weep.
posted by mikelieman at 8:02 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by mikelieman at 8:02 AM on July 16, 2013
Is there any evidence that Zimmerman's fear is reasonable?
The jury apparently thought so. Both sides apparently thought an all women jury was a good idea but I wonder if it didn't hurt the prosecution on this particular point? Maybe a dude would have been more likely to think Zimmerman didn't need to use his gun.
posted by Justinian at 8:04 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
The jury apparently thought so. Both sides apparently thought an all women jury was a good idea but I wonder if it didn't hurt the prosecution on this particular point? Maybe a dude would have been more likely to think Zimmerman didn't need to use his gun.
posted by Justinian at 8:04 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman was being hurt
Zimmerman MAY have been being hurt. The verdict means the court has decided his version of events is possible, not likely.
(given the evidence and the fact that I am not being railroaded by a judge I'd disagree with them, but there you go. )
posted by Artw at 8:06 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman MAY have been being hurt. The verdict means the court has decided his version of events is possible, not likely.
(given the evidence and the fact that I am not being railroaded by a judge I'd disagree with them, but there you go. )
posted by Artw at 8:06 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Again, since Zimmerman's fear wasn't REASONABLE, it's irrelevant.
I'm not sure there's proof of this particular thing beyond a reasonable doubt. But it doesn't matter, since Zimmerman initiated the whole thing. If Martin had been armed, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Martin if he reached for a weapon to defend himself against Zimmerman.
It is hugely problematic that we've created a point of no return beyond which it's apparently legal for two people to kill each other.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:11 AM on July 16, 2013
I'm not sure there's proof of this particular thing beyond a reasonable doubt. But it doesn't matter, since Zimmerman initiated the whole thing. If Martin had been armed, Zimmerman would not have been able to shoot Martin if he reached for a weapon to defend himself against Zimmerman.
It is hugely problematic that we've created a point of no return beyond which it's apparently legal for two people to kill each other.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:11 AM on July 16, 2013
I wonder if it didn't hurt the prosecution on this particular point?
That presumes that the prosecution was in the game to win. I'm not so sure that's a valid assumption to make, given how they managed to get involuntary manslaughter excluded from the jury instructions AND failed to attack Zimmerman's perceptions as "Unreasonable"...
When you HAVE TO have a trial, but don't really want convictions, this here is a case study.
posted by mikelieman at 8:12 AM on July 16, 2013
That presumes that the prosecution was in the game to win. I'm not so sure that's a valid assumption to make, given how they managed to get involuntary manslaughter excluded from the jury instructions AND failed to attack Zimmerman's perceptions as "Unreasonable"...
When you HAVE TO have a trial, but don't really want convictions, this here is a case study.
posted by mikelieman at 8:12 AM on July 16, 2013
If it is clear that Martin returned back toward where he'd last seen Zimmerman, then you can ask why he would do that?
This is not at all clear and if you want to make it clear please present evidence.
My god. I did, at length. See here and here.
But here is the short of it:
- Zimmerman says on the 911 call "he's running." At the time he says this, Martin is a quick two-minute walk from where his father lives, and he is headed in that direction, on a path not a road. Which is also the direction of a neighborhood exit, but Zimmerman loses sight of him before seeing whether he heads on the path toward the exit or turns onto the one toward his house. Zimmerman gets out of his car and walks a short distance to the place where Martin would have gone one way or the other.
- Four minutes after Zimmerman tells 911 "he's running," the confrontation happens, close to this area where the path forks.
- In between, Martin tells his girlfriend that he's not running any more, that he's at his father's house. Also during this period, Zimmerman tells 911 he doesn't know where Martin is.
So how/why did Martin get back to the general area where Zimmerman had lost sight of him, which is maybe 4-500 feet from his father's house?
And on preview, if you think this is problematic data, I don't know what to say. It's just time & distances. Nothing in this summary is speculative at all.
posted by torticat at 8:13 AM on July 16, 2013
This is not at all clear and if you want to make it clear please present evidence.
My god. I did, at length. See here and here.
But here is the short of it:
- Zimmerman says on the 911 call "he's running." At the time he says this, Martin is a quick two-minute walk from where his father lives, and he is headed in that direction, on a path not a road. Which is also the direction of a neighborhood exit, but Zimmerman loses sight of him before seeing whether he heads on the path toward the exit or turns onto the one toward his house. Zimmerman gets out of his car and walks a short distance to the place where Martin would have gone one way or the other.
- Four minutes after Zimmerman tells 911 "he's running," the confrontation happens, close to this area where the path forks.
- In between, Martin tells his girlfriend that he's not running any more, that he's at his father's house. Also during this period, Zimmerman tells 911 he doesn't know where Martin is.
So how/why did Martin get back to the general area where Zimmerman had lost sight of him, which is maybe 4-500 feet from his father's house?
And on preview, if you think this is problematic data, I don't know what to say. It's just time & distances. Nothing in this summary is speculative at all.
posted by torticat at 8:13 AM on July 16, 2013
I'm actually not prepared to say that Zimmerman's fear was unreasonable. Misguided, the product of racist culture, sure. I suspect also that there is a lot of alienation and disempowerment in his own background which has fed into his vigilantist mentality. I see Zimmerman as a victim as well (not that the kid who got shot with the pack of skittles in his hand isn't the victim): but I think the way to move forward is to recognize that Zimmerman is not "crazy" or "racist" in the traditional KKKish sense of the word, but is the product and victim of powerful forces of alienation which in this country have generally been channeled into anti-Black and anti-minority animus.
I mean, not to go all Marxist here but if Zimmerman had fulfilling and sustaining employment and a personal sense of purpose, place and legitimate power, would he have gone down this whole self-appointed Guardian Of The Neighborhood route?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:13 AM on July 16, 2013
I mean, not to go all Marxist here but if Zimmerman had fulfilling and sustaining employment and a personal sense of purpose, place and legitimate power, would he have gone down this whole self-appointed Guardian Of The Neighborhood route?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:13 AM on July 16, 2013
Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice
Thanks ArtW. I hadn't seen that yet. A definite must read.
So for those keeping track, the answer to "Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, _______" looks like it might end up being Jordan Davis. Let's hope not.
posted by cashman at 8:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Thanks ArtW. I hadn't seen that yet. A definite must read.
So for those keeping track, the answer to "Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, _______" looks like it might end up being Jordan Davis. Let's hope not.
posted by cashman at 8:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
So how/why did Martin get back to the general area where Zimmerman had lost sight of him,
Martin never left the area by the mailboxes ( where it was sheltered ), Zimmerman ran right by him, and when Zimmerman turned back found Martin, and attempted to unlawfully detain him for questioning by the police. Martin lawfully resisted, and Zimmerman shot him dead in the ensuing struggle.
posted by mikelieman at 8:16 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Martin never left the area by the mailboxes ( where it was sheltered ), Zimmerman ran right by him, and when Zimmerman turned back found Martin, and attempted to unlawfully detain him for questioning by the police. Martin lawfully resisted, and Zimmerman shot him dead in the ensuing struggle.
posted by mikelieman at 8:16 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
So whatever Martin did, he didn't walk or run straight home. Not that he was any obligation to do so, but this is just to put to rest the idea that, as a scared kid, the only possible thing he would have done would have been to go straight home.
Or hide, because he doesn't want a creepy ass guy following him to know where he lives.
Again, http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-with-911-call-timing.jpg is the map that tracks the call and martin's possible routes. I don't see him moving back and forth or approaching Zimmerman. Maybe its wrong, I don't know.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Or hide, because he doesn't want a creepy ass guy following him to know where he lives.
Again, http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-with-911-call-timing.jpg is the map that tracks the call and martin's possible routes. I don't see him moving back and forth or approaching Zimmerman. Maybe its wrong, I don't know.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:22 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Kobe Bryant puts up a post on his Facebook page:
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
-Frederick Douglass-"
posted by cashman at 8:26 AM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
-Frederick Douglass-"
posted by cashman at 8:26 AM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
torticat, Rachel Jeantel's account paints a different picture than your version. It very much sounds like Martin and Zimmerman did in fact lose sight of each other for a little bit, but her story makes it sound like Zimmerman is the one who reacquired Martin.
I also could have sworn that I'd read that she had begged Martin to run home but that he told her he decided against it because he didn't want to lead this creepy man back to the house where his little brother was. I cannot find any account that confirms that, so I may just be misremembering/misattributing speculation from someone here on MeFi in one of the earlier Zimmerman threads.
In other news, looks like one determined person help put the kibosh on Juror B37's book deal.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:34 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I also could have sworn that I'd read that she had begged Martin to run home but that he told her he decided against it because he didn't want to lead this creepy man back to the house where his little brother was. I cannot find any account that confirms that, so I may just be misremembering/misattributing speculation from someone here on MeFi in one of the earlier Zimmerman threads.
In other news, looks like one determined person help put the kibosh on Juror B37's book deal.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:34 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Posted on Twitter (by Phil Hendrie (@realphilhendrie)) about 3 hours ago:
George Zimmerman's hands 45 minutes after his 'life-threatening' brawl with Trayvon Martin
.....and the bottom of his left hand
The back of Zimmerman's jacket after claiming he's been pinned in a muddy struggle with Martin
Sorry, I just ain't buying the idea that Zimmerman was scared. I'm thinking he followed Martin, maybe even said something to Martin about detaining him (I've seen more than my fair share of pushy racist white men yelling at black kids "Where are you going? You stay right there!"), at one point Martin likely said something like "Fuck you, man", and well that's just when Zimmerman decided no black kid disrespects him!
Yes, this is my speculation, based on little more than the gaps in the story and my own experiences. But I don't see this as being particularly unlikely. Based on the story (even the "official" one) and these photos, there was never a struggle. Just a jumpy asshole with a gun.
posted by grubi at 8:35 AM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
George Zimmerman's hands 45 minutes after his 'life-threatening' brawl with Trayvon Martin
.....and the bottom of his left hand
The back of Zimmerman's jacket after claiming he's been pinned in a muddy struggle with Martin
Sorry, I just ain't buying the idea that Zimmerman was scared. I'm thinking he followed Martin, maybe even said something to Martin about detaining him (I've seen more than my fair share of pushy racist white men yelling at black kids "Where are you going? You stay right there!"), at one point Martin likely said something like "Fuck you, man", and well that's just when Zimmerman decided no black kid disrespects him!
Yes, this is my speculation, based on little more than the gaps in the story and my own experiences. But I don't see this as being particularly unlikely. Based on the story (even the "official" one) and these photos, there was never a struggle. Just a jumpy asshole with a gun.
posted by grubi at 8:35 AM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
Martin never left the area by the mailboxes ( where it was sheltered )
Dude, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. The area where the fight took place was nowhere near the mailboxes. You could look at the interactive map here to see the locations.
Also, it is possible of course that Martin never went to his father's house but just ducked into some bushes near the T in the path. And then spent four minutes there, a couple of them talking to his girlfriend on the phone and mentioning to her that he was at his father's house? While Zimmerman is poking around the area and talking to 911? And then, while still talking on the phone, Martin pops out of hiding and the confrontation happens?
I haven't looked at that wordpress thingy yet though, Misantropic. I'll do that.
posted by torticat at 8:37 AM on July 16, 2013
Dude, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. The area where the fight took place was nowhere near the mailboxes. You could look at the interactive map here to see the locations.
Also, it is possible of course that Martin never went to his father's house but just ducked into some bushes near the T in the path. And then spent four minutes there, a couple of them talking to his girlfriend on the phone and mentioning to her that he was at his father's house? While Zimmerman is poking around the area and talking to 911? And then, while still talking on the phone, Martin pops out of hiding and the confrontation happens?
I haven't looked at that wordpress thingy yet though, Misantropic. I'll do that.
posted by torticat at 8:37 AM on July 16, 2013
The idea that Martin approached Zimmerman has no supporting evidence and can only be arrived at via speculation and Zimmerman's word. If that's good enough for you, so be it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:43 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:43 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am not sure what the point of all these excuses for Zimmermans actually-pretty-racist "not racism" are.
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
Its also more or less irrelevant because approaching someone does not reasonably threaten their life.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would think the reasonable reaction to feeling one's life is in danger would be to go in the opposite direction.
posted by grubi at 8:47 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by grubi at 8:47 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
She said she believes that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of his life. I think this is an important legal distinction, isn't it? Self defense is applicable for someone in fear for his life, right? As opposed to someone whose life is in danger.
No, the distinction is whether a reasonable person would believe he was endangered. Being afraid for your life because the kid you're in a fistfight with is one of "them" who "always get away" just means you're a violent racist lunatic.
posted by kagredon at 9:06 AM on July 16, 2013 [10 favorites]
No, the distinction is whether a reasonable person would believe he was endangered. Being afraid for your life because the kid you're in a fistfight with is one of "them" who "always get away" just means you're a violent racist lunatic.
posted by kagredon at 9:06 AM on July 16, 2013 [10 favorites]
"I would think the reasonable reaction to feeling one's life is in danger would be to go in the opposite direction."
Stand your ground, dude.
posted by klangklangston at 9:09 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Stand your ground, dude.
posted by klangklangston at 9:09 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Re the path argument: I used to sit outside the library at night on campus to enjoy the stillness.
One night a man came out of the library and something about his behavior frightened me, so I walked away toward another building. He followed. Now thoroughly scared and not thinking straight, I walked further away and hid in a half-concealed basement doorway for a while until I thought he must have given up the chase. I then walked back the way he'd come toward my dorm, thinking he'd have to have moved away.
If I'd been killed, would people have assumed that my backtracking was an attempt to force a confrontation? Probably not, because I was a white girl.
posted by winna at 9:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [25 favorites]
One night a man came out of the library and something about his behavior frightened me, so I walked away toward another building. He followed. Now thoroughly scared and not thinking straight, I walked further away and hid in a half-concealed basement doorway for a while until I thought he must have given up the chase. I then walked back the way he'd come toward my dorm, thinking he'd have to have moved away.
If I'd been killed, would people have assumed that my backtracking was an attempt to force a confrontation? Probably not, because I was a white girl.
posted by winna at 9:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [25 favorites]
Stand your ground, dude.
I see what you're saying, but I still felt I had to say: I would do so if there was no alternative, no escape route, no open spaces. I certainly don't interpret "stand your ground" as "GO GET 'IM!"
posted by grubi at 9:16 AM on July 16, 2013
I see what you're saying, but I still felt I had to say: I would do so if there was no alternative, no escape route, no open spaces. I certainly don't interpret "stand your ground" as "GO GET 'IM!"
posted by grubi at 9:16 AM on July 16, 2013
Stand your ground, dude.
Man, when you say it like that, all I can picture is this.
:-/
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:22 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Man, when you say it like that, all I can picture is this.
:-/
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:22 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ok, I've seen the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries. Zimmerman was not subject to a ground and pound beating for the better part of a minute, like he claims. That's complete horseshit. Even a skinny teenager like Martin would have been able to do way more damage than that.
When I was 16, I got jumped and kicked while I was on the ground for maybe 30 seconds. My jaw was fractured, I had a cut clean through my upper lip. I lost consciousness briefly as I watched my assailants running away. They were younger than me, 13-14 probably, and all small for their age. 3 or 4 of them. They were wearing soft running shoes. None of them could have weighed more than 100 pounds. I was able to protect my head and they didn't manage to land more than a few kicks. I looked way, way worse than Zimmerman.
Someone the size of Martin would have been able to do a lot more visible damage if he had been slamming his head against the pavement and had landed the "25 to 30" punches Zimmerman claims to have received. For me, that part of his testimony was a complete and transparent lie. Martin was skinny, but he was tall and athletic. If he had been pounding him like that, he would be more purple than pink. He would have needed stitches on cuts around his eyes. He would have a fat lip or his jaw wired shut. He'd at least have two black eyes and a visibly broken nose.
I can tell you what these injuries are consistent with: getting a single punch in the face, then falling on his ass and scraping the back of his head on the pavement Hell, there isn't even any serious bruising. Either way, he probably felt emasculated that the fucking punk had handled his attempt to detain him so effortlessly. Fortunately, he had his gun, see.
Either way, the fact remains that in Florida, it is apparently legal to chase a kid down and shoot him dead as long as you can produce a bloody nose and a few scrapes. Of course, race has nothing to do with this. If it had been a white boy he killed, nothing would have changed, no siree!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:28 AM on July 16, 2013 [36 favorites]
When I was 16, I got jumped and kicked while I was on the ground for maybe 30 seconds. My jaw was fractured, I had a cut clean through my upper lip. I lost consciousness briefly as I watched my assailants running away. They were younger than me, 13-14 probably, and all small for their age. 3 or 4 of them. They were wearing soft running shoes. None of them could have weighed more than 100 pounds. I was able to protect my head and they didn't manage to land more than a few kicks. I looked way, way worse than Zimmerman.
Someone the size of Martin would have been able to do a lot more visible damage if he had been slamming his head against the pavement and had landed the "25 to 30" punches Zimmerman claims to have received. For me, that part of his testimony was a complete and transparent lie. Martin was skinny, but he was tall and athletic. If he had been pounding him like that, he would be more purple than pink. He would have needed stitches on cuts around his eyes. He would have a fat lip or his jaw wired shut. He'd at least have two black eyes and a visibly broken nose.
I can tell you what these injuries are consistent with: getting a single punch in the face, then falling on his ass and scraping the back of his head on the pavement Hell, there isn't even any serious bruising. Either way, he probably felt emasculated that the fucking punk had handled his attempt to detain him so effortlessly. Fortunately, he had his gun, see.
Either way, the fact remains that in Florida, it is apparently legal to chase a kid down and shoot him dead as long as you can produce a bloody nose and a few scrapes. Of course, race has nothing to do with this. If it had been a white boy he killed, nothing would have changed, no siree!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:28 AM on July 16, 2013 [36 favorites]
Either way, the fact remains that in Florida, it is apparently legal to chase a kid down and shoot him dead as long as you can produce a bloody nose and a few scrapes. Of course, race has nothing to do with this. If it had been a white boy he killed, nothing would have changed, no siree!
Yeah, this is the full story and the significance to me. It seems like all the people who are saying there's "nuance" or "Zimmerman was scared" or "self defense" are also people who say race isn't an issue in this country.
posted by sweetkid at 9:32 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
Quick question for those who felt ZImmerman was in the clear: suppose he possessed no firearm. Would he have pursued Martin? Would he have gotten out of the car? Would he have killed Martin?
I don't think he would have. He had the gun on him and felt emboldened by it. His language to the 911 dispatcher indicates he felt he had a DUTY to dispense JUSTICE. The man was a vigilante manslaughter waiting to happen.
posted by grubi at 9:32 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
I don't think he would have. He had the gun on him and felt emboldened by it. His language to the 911 dispatcher indicates he felt he had a DUTY to dispense JUSTICE. The man was a vigilante manslaughter waiting to happen.
posted by grubi at 9:32 AM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
The man was is a vigilante manslaughter waiting to happen.
Yep.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:34 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yep.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:34 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Grubi, that's the first I've seen of his hands or jacket. That certainly doesn't argue in favor of an actual fight. We would expect something like defensive injuries to his hands. The jacket being clean and dry is pretty damning too.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:35 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:35 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Looking at the pictures of Zimmerman's hands, and especially the back of his jacket, I can't come to any other conclusion than that it is impossible for his version of events to be true (not that I thought him at all truthful before, but this seems the icing on this devastation cake.) Was this not presented as evidence??
posted by dysh at 9:38 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by dysh at 9:38 AM on July 16, 2013
[expletive deleted], pretty much what I thought. Now, granted, I haven't confirmed that those photos are precisely what the gentleman who tweeted them says they were (although I have no reason to doubt it so far), but whatever the case may be, that doesn't look like someone who had *just* been in a knock-down fistfight.
posted by grubi at 9:39 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by grubi at 9:39 AM on July 16, 2013
Following up my last comment: Daily Kos poster points out those photos are indeed genuine.
posted by grubi at 9:41 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by grubi at 9:41 AM on July 16, 2013
I hadn't seen those pictures until just now. For me, the pictures of his face just demolish Zimmerman's claims about a fight. The jacket may have not been what he was wearing, but the lack of defensive injuries to his hands are as inconsistent with his version of events as the pictures of his head.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:44 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
People think fights are like a movie,with people pounding on each other for 10 -15 minutes and they all dust themselves off and walk away.
If Zimmerman got beat on for full minute against the concrete he would be dead, Martin's hands would be cut to shit and covered with blood. There is just no conceivable way it happened and Zimmerman still pulled a gun.
The pictures look like someone who got hit once and fell over backwards and hit his head. That happens is an surprising amount of fights. People circle square up for like 10 minutes then one punch gets thrown and someone goes down.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:45 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
If Zimmerman got beat on for full minute against the concrete he would be dead, Martin's hands would be cut to shit and covered with blood. There is just no conceivable way it happened and Zimmerman still pulled a gun.
The pictures look like someone who got hit once and fell over backwards and hit his head. That happens is an surprising amount of fights. People circle square up for like 10 minutes then one punch gets thrown and someone goes down.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:45 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
If those photos are genuine, and their timing is accurate, then I have no idea how the jury felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
From the DailyKos article, "The Jury will also see that the Autopsy does not mention any: blood, dirt, defensive wounds or offensive wounds on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs -- which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose 25-30 times, covered his nose and mouth while at the same slamming his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times."
Jesus christ, the more I find out about this the sadder I get. And the more vile the apologists appear in my eyes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [19 favorites]
From the DailyKos article, "The Jury will also see that the Autopsy does not mention any: blood, dirt, defensive wounds or offensive wounds on Trayvon Martin's knuckles, palms, wrists, fingers or thumbs -- which dispels Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose 25-30 times, covered his nose and mouth while at the same slamming his head into the sidewalk over a dozen times."
Jesus christ, the more I find out about this the sadder I get. And the more vile the apologists appear in my eyes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [19 favorites]
Wow. This plus the DNA evidence linked? I don't see how anyone can buy Zimmerman's account for a second.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah. Maybe Trayvon popped Zimmerman in the face while Zimmerman was trying to grab him. Zimmerman screamed, fell backwards, hit his head on the sidewalk, and then proceeded to pull out his gun. Trayvon saw this and jumped on Zimmerman to try to grab the gun before Zimmerman could shoot him, but Zimmerman was able to get off a shot.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:49 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:49 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not unless they really want to.
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Excellent rebuttal to Saletan from Balloon Juice: The Invisible Hand’s Trigger Finger (emphasis in original)
[H]ow do you wave away a case like Trevor Dooley’s — a mirror image of the Zimmerman case in many instances, except that it was Dooley, an older black man, who was the armed neighborhood busybody confronting unarmed people while carrying a gun. In the Dooley case, the unarmed man who was shot and killed was white. Dooley was convicted of manslaughter after less than two hours of deliberation.posted by zombieflanders at 9:52 AM on July 16, 2013 [11 favorites]
In his zeal to insist that everyone who is critical of the Zimmerman trial outcome take context into account and see the larger picture, Saletan seems to assume that since Zimmerman was never captured on tape using the n-word, race isn’t a factor in this case at all, and the societal context and the outcomes of similar cases in the justice system don’t matter.
It does matter, and the people who are pissed off about it aren’t focusing exclusively on whether or not Zimmerman is a racist douche. Rather they’re noting the larger implications of the fact that a grown man who pursued an unarmed teen who was minding his own business and shot him in the heart has apparently not broken any Florida laws.
Saletan also waves away the role the gun played in the stalking and killing of Trayvon Martin, admonishing us not to focus on “our pet issues.” But it was the gun that emboldened Zimmerman (and Dooley too in the case above) and turned what might have been a non-event at best or scuffle at worst into a homicide. Why the hell should that be ignored?
He couldn't be found guilty in a civil trial, just liable.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is there any way at all other than the civil trial (if that happens) that Zimmerman could ever be found guilty legally?
Theoretically, a federal civil rights case, but it's a very hard burden.
posted by dsfan at 9:56 AM on July 16, 2013
Theoretically, a federal civil rights case, but it's a very hard burden.
posted by dsfan at 9:56 AM on July 16, 2013
Not unless they really want to.
This whole affair has brought out things in people I really wish I didn't have to see.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
This whole affair has brought out things in people I really wish I didn't have to see.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Florida's Stand Your Ground law pretty much pre-dismisses any civil suit against Zimmerman.
posted by localroger at 9:57 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by localroger at 9:57 AM on July 16, 2013
I guess I missed it before, so my apologies. But an armed Zimmerman, a grown man, wouldn't even give out his address on the phone for fear of the person he was chasing would hear it.
"It's a home, it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is"
Yet people can't understand why Trayvon, an unarmed teenager, wouldn't want to go home and actually lead a grown man following him in a car who it turns out had a gun, to his house?
And there has been so much evidence and time passed, but when this first started, didn't Zimmerman claim he couldn't tell Trayvon was a kid? Did that get brought up during the trial?
posted by cashman at 9:58 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
"It's a home, it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is"
Yet people can't understand why Trayvon, an unarmed teenager, wouldn't want to go home and actually lead a grown man following him in a car who it turns out had a gun, to his house?
And there has been so much evidence and time passed, but when this first started, didn't Zimmerman claim he couldn't tell Trayvon was a kid? Did that get brought up during the trial?
posted by cashman at 9:58 AM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
how so?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:58 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:58 AM on July 16, 2013
an armed Zimmerman, a grown man, wouldn't even give out his address on the phone for fear of the person he was chasing would hear it.
Yeah. "I fear for my life" isn't congruous with refusing to cooperate with authorities. That behavior is more congruous with "I AM BATMAN".
posted by grubi at 10:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
Yeah. "I fear for my life" isn't congruous with refusing to cooperate with authorities. That behavior is more congruous with "I AM BATMAN".
posted by grubi at 10:02 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
SYG doesn't pre-dismiss a civil suit against Zimmerman, but it does carry risks for the Martin family.
A Civil Suit Could Make Zimmerman Pay — or Could Backfire
A Civil Suit Could Make Zimmerman Pay — or Could Backfire
The bigger threat to Martin’s family would be Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, which wound up playing a small role in the criminal trial. Under the law, if Martin’s family sued, Zimmerman would be entitled to a hearing at which he would be given a chance to show that he used deadly force only because he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. He skipped that step before the criminal trial, but he would no doubt take it if he were sued. And if Zimmerman won his “Stand your ground” hearing, he would not only get the civil suit thrown out, but the law also says that whoever sued him would have to pay him attorneys fees, expenses and compensation for any loss of income resulting from the proceedings. That would be a bitter pill for the family to swallow: the man who shot their son to death beating the criminal charges, getting the civil lawsuit dismissed — and then presenting them with a bill.posted by BobbyVan at 10:05 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wow. Well hopefully the Martin family does go with a civil suit against Zimmerman, and in the off chance that Zimmerman wins, many people donate to the Martin family to help fund their legal expenses, like many did to Zimmerman.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:08 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
"Man, when you say it like that, all I can picture is this."
That's kinda funny, given that I kinda pictured Zimmerman like Walter when this all first started happening.
posted by klangklangston at 10:09 AM on July 16, 2013
That's kinda funny, given that I kinda pictured Zimmerman like Walter when this all first started happening.
posted by klangklangston at 10:09 AM on July 16, 2013
Couple hundred people started smashing stuff here in LA last night and the LAPD cracked down hard, probably trying to make sure any problems get nipped in the bud. I'm sure the O NOES RIOOOOOTS people will try to point to this as vindication but it was relatively minor so far. My guess is it stays that way.
posted by Justinian at 10:12 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by Justinian at 10:12 AM on July 16, 2013
Last night? Huh. Didn't hear about it, and my facebook exploded over the protests on the freeway. Where were they?
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 10:14 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
What's really funny is comparing the coverage of that at, say, the NYT versus Fox News
they knocked down a few Wal-Mart displays
the monsters
also Fox News doesn't seem to understand where Oakland and Los Angeles are in relation to each other geographically.
posted by kagredon at 10:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
they knocked down a few Wal-Mart displays
the monsters
also Fox News doesn't seem to understand where Oakland and Los Angeles are in relation to each other geographically.
posted by kagredon at 10:15 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Oh, Leimert Park, OK. Since I moved away from the West Side, I hear a lot less about that neighborhood.
posted by klangklangston at 10:17 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by klangklangston at 10:17 AM on July 16, 2013
One thing that I think would help the discussion on this issue is for people to take implicit association tests:
Harvard Implicit Associations Tests
There are tests on there for race and for weapons.
On the race one, I got a moderate preference for black Americans over white Americans. (Big surprise there!)
But guess what I scored on the weapons test? "Your data suggest a moderate association of Black Americans with Weapons compared to White Americans."
This is both deeply troubling and eye opening. It suggests I wouldn't necessarily score any better than anyone else on the shooting unarmed suspects test.
I wonder how the various people I see in this thread and all over Facebook and the media telling me that race absolutely was in no way a factor in the events of that night, the subsequent investigation, or the trial would perform on these tests. I wonder how George Zimmerman would perform. How would those who agree with me that race was a factor perform? The jurors? The judge? William Saletan?
If people could take these tests and reflect on the results, would that mean my son would never have to hear "What are you doing in this neighborhood?" That's about the only thin sliver of hope I have left right now. My wife is still torn up thinking that a Zimmerman could take me or our son from her and walk away a free man.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:21 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
Harvard Implicit Associations Tests
There are tests on there for race and for weapons.
On the race one, I got a moderate preference for black Americans over white Americans. (Big surprise there!)
But guess what I scored on the weapons test? "Your data suggest a moderate association of Black Americans with Weapons compared to White Americans."
This is both deeply troubling and eye opening. It suggests I wouldn't necessarily score any better than anyone else on the shooting unarmed suspects test.
I wonder how the various people I see in this thread and all over Facebook and the media telling me that race absolutely was in no way a factor in the events of that night, the subsequent investigation, or the trial would perform on these tests. I wonder how George Zimmerman would perform. How would those who agree with me that race was a factor perform? The jurors? The judge? William Saletan?
If people could take these tests and reflect on the results, would that mean my son would never have to hear "What are you doing in this neighborhood?" That's about the only thin sliver of hope I have left right now. My wife is still torn up thinking that a Zimmerman could take me or our son from her and walk away a free man.
posted by lord_wolf at 10:21 AM on July 16, 2013 [9 favorites]
Ron Daniels: "A Travesty in 'Post Racial' America"
The Zimmerman verdict and the post-trial gloating by the defense team demonstrate that the idea of a post-racial America is delusional. Substantial sectors of White America have no clue about what it means to be a young Black man in America whether rich, middle class or poor. The negative portrayals of Black men in the media, some of which are attributable to the War on Drugs, crime, violence and fratricide in America's "dark ghettos," has reduced all Black men to suspects.posted by audi alteram partem at 10:23 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
HA I have taken those Harvard tests before and oh what a surprise, I peer suspiciously at white people and expect them to shoot me.
posted by elizardbits at 10:26 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by elizardbits at 10:26 AM on July 16, 2013
Last night? Huh. Didn't hear about it, and my facebook exploded over the protests on the freeway. Where were they?
Crenshaw between Exposition and Slauson mostly.
Oh, Leimert Park
They "stormed" a Walmart and started smashing stuff. Maybe they just really hate Walmart?
posted by Justinian at 10:31 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Crenshaw between Exposition and Slauson mostly.
Oh, Leimert Park
They "stormed" a Walmart and started smashing stuff. Maybe they just really hate Walmart?
posted by Justinian at 10:31 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually "smashing stuff" is even too harsh. They caused a ruckus, the bastards.
posted by Justinian at 10:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
there was this weird thing today in my class of predominately black students; I asked them if they thought race was an issue in this case (tangentially related 'cause we were reading "The Battle Royal" and talking about symbolic reps of racism in the US) and I think the majority of the students said, no, it was the law. Then I said, well do you think that Zimmerman would have come out after me, a white middle-aged woman. Everybody said no except for one woman who was going on and on about how Zimmerman was Hispanic and I couldn't even ask her about the logic of that without phrasing it insultingly, so I didn't.
posted by angrycat at 10:34 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by angrycat at 10:34 AM on July 16, 2013
Harvard Implicit Associations Tests
There are tests on there for race and for weapons.
So I took the test just now. My result:
posted by grubi at 10:36 AM on July 16, 2013
There are tests on there for race and for weapons.
So I took the test just now. My result:
Your data suggest little or no association between Black American and White American with Harmless Objects and Weapons.Huh.
posted by grubi at 10:36 AM on July 16, 2013
I probably caused more problems at Wal-Mart last time I was there (4th of July) trying to buy Schlitz and Triscuits so I could watch the fireworks from the parking lot (in my defense, there was only one Schlitz left and it was at the very back of the tallest shelf in the beer aisle, which means that at 5'4" I am going to have to climb onto something to get to it.) I'm white-passing and don't have many friends though, so I guess it wasn't very scary.
posted by kagredon at 10:37 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 10:37 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
I probably caused more problems at Wal-Mart last time I was there (4th of July) trying to buy Schlitz and Triscuits
Well, now we know who the true monster is.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
Well, now we know who the true monster is.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
Schlitz and Triscuits
My favorite vaudeville act!
posted by grubi at 10:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
My favorite vaudeville act!
posted by grubi at 10:38 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
I just learned of this from an AskMe:
10-20-Life
Basically says that if you use a gun to commit a felony, you get at least 10 years.
I don't know why the prosecution didn't try and charge Zimmerman with this.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:45 AM on July 16, 2013
10-20-Life
Basically says that if you use a gun to commit a felony, you get at least 10 years.
I don't know why the prosecution didn't try and charge Zimmerman with this.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:45 AM on July 16, 2013
Murder is a felony.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:46 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:46 AM on July 16, 2013
desjardins, that front page is awful, but I was made hopeful by the Newseum's top ten page, which shows a "verdict" of people taking to the streets and being outraged... The Daily News & Boston Herald are pretty forthright. It's something anyway.
New York newspaper’s Trayvon Martin cover is powerful and pretty damn gutsy
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
New York newspaper’s Trayvon Martin cover is powerful and pretty damn gutsy
posted by homunculus at 10:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
MP: That's a sentencing issue not a charge.
posted by Justinian at 10:50 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:50 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
New York newspaper’s Trayvon Martin cover is powerful and pretty damn gutsy
And even that leaves some victims out.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:55 AM on July 16, 2013
And even that leaves some victims out.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:55 AM on July 16, 2013
I mean why didn't they charge him with firing a gun in the process of committing a felony? (stalking)
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:01 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:01 AM on July 16, 2013
why didn't they charge him with firing a gun in the process of committing a felony?
They've discussed this in many published accounts. This was published at the time the charges were filed. Here's more about the Attorney General's response recently which discusses the charges (note the appalling take down of what she was wearing in the second paragraph). Their response was that they wanted to charge him with the most serious charge that they thought he could be convicted of which is why they went for murder 2.
posted by jessamyn at 11:12 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
They've discussed this in many published accounts. This was published at the time the charges were filed. Here's more about the Attorney General's response recently which discusses the charges (note the appalling take down of what she was wearing in the second paragraph). Their response was that they wanted to charge him with the most serious charge that they thought he could be convicted of which is why they went for murder 2.
posted by jessamyn at 11:12 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
I mean why didn't they charge him with firing a gun in the process of committing a felony? (stalking)
It's a sentencing issue, not a separate charge. If you are convicted of a felony, you get the mandatory minimum sentence for using a gun. It reclassifies the sentence you get for the felony, rather than being an additional charge. Had they convicted him of a felony the law would apply, but not until then.
It also looks like it only applies to aggravated stalking, not regular stalking, and as I read the Florida law, aggravated stalking requires continuing to engage in the stalking behavior after some sort of court order to stop.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:15 AM on July 16, 2013
It's a sentencing issue, not a separate charge. If you are convicted of a felony, you get the mandatory minimum sentence for using a gun. It reclassifies the sentence you get for the felony, rather than being an additional charge. Had they convicted him of a felony the law would apply, but not until then.
It also looks like it only applies to aggravated stalking, not regular stalking, and as I read the Florida law, aggravated stalking requires continuing to engage in the stalking behavior after some sort of court order to stop.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:15 AM on July 16, 2013
Yeah apologies, I was just addressing the "Why murder 2?" thing, you can't charge someone with "firing a gun in the process of a felony"
posted by jessamyn at 11:18 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by jessamyn at 11:18 AM on July 16, 2013
I think I broke that Harvard test. My results were Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American. Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
Old hippies, man, we love everybody. Harvard can't code for us.
posted by maggieb at 11:26 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Old hippies, man, we love everybody. Harvard can't code for us.
posted by maggieb at 11:26 AM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Did you hear that juror?
I saw some of the Anderson Cooper interview with juror B37 this morning. What a horrifyingly stupid person.
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on July 16, 2013
I saw some of the Anderson Cooper interview with juror B37 this morning. What a horrifyingly stupid person.
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on July 16, 2013
B37 was a mess but the Rachel Jeantel interview (also on CNN) was very good.
posted by maggieb at 11:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by maggieb at 11:33 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer - can someone with expertise clear this up? From watching the juror interview yesterday it seems like they objectively applied the legal standards incorrectly in this case in a few ways. Off the top of my head:
1) They asked the question of whether Zimmerman in particular feared that he was in fatal danger or grave bodily harm, not whether a reasonable person (someone who exercises average care and judgment within the community) in Zimmerman's shoes would have feared that he was in fatal danger or grave bodily harm.
2) They narrowed their focus to the few seconds leading up to and during the physical altercation, and the juror said they specifically did not look at the totality of the events leading up to them. Which is relevant to whether Zimmerman's actions were grossly/culpably negligent.
3) The juror said it came down to the question of whether Zimmerman feared he was in "bodily harm." Not "grave bodily harm" sufficient that only deadly force could have prevented it. Which does make a difference.
I think those are the main statements I flagged that could totally change the outcome of the verdict.
posted by naju at 11:40 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
1) They asked the question of whether Zimmerman in particular feared that he was in fatal danger or grave bodily harm, not whether a reasonable person (someone who exercises average care and judgment within the community) in Zimmerman's shoes would have feared that he was in fatal danger or grave bodily harm.
2) They narrowed their focus to the few seconds leading up to and during the physical altercation, and the juror said they specifically did not look at the totality of the events leading up to them. Which is relevant to whether Zimmerman's actions were grossly/culpably negligent.
3) The juror said it came down to the question of whether Zimmerman feared he was in "bodily harm." Not "grave bodily harm" sufficient that only deadly force could have prevented it. Which does make a difference.
I think those are the main statements I flagged that could totally change the outcome of the verdict.
posted by naju at 11:40 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
Additionally naju, when NPR talked about it this morning I think one of the comments she referenced by a witness that she said she found influential, they were told by the judge to disregard for whatever reason.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:45 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:45 AM on July 16, 2013
COOPER: When he testified that he found George Zimmerman to be more or less and overall truthful, did that make an impression on you?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It did. It did. It made a big impression on me.
COOPER: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Because he deals with this all the time.
ALLEN: The judge told the jury to disregard the comment by Serino, that he found Zimmerman's story believable. Juror B37 seemed to indicate she ignored the judge's instruction.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It did. It did. It made a big impression on me.
COOPER: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Because he deals with this all the time.
ALLEN: The judge told the jury to disregard the comment by Serino, that he found Zimmerman's story believable. Juror B37 seemed to indicate she ignored the judge's instruction.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:46 AM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
naju: They also placed a lot of weight on testimony that was stricken from the record.
posted by Justinian at 11:47 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by Justinian at 11:47 AM on July 16, 2013
Ho-lee fuck, this pile of bullshit just gets worse and worse.
posted by Artw at 11:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:48 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
It also looks like it only applies to aggravated stalking, not regular stalking, and as I read the Florida law, aggravated stalking requires continuing to engage in the stalking behavior after some sort of court order to stop.
Thanks, that answers a lot.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:50 AM on July 16, 2013
Thanks, that answers a lot.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:50 AM on July 16, 2013
Damn you, Dynamite Toast, I thought I was the only one who noticed that.
posted by Justinian at 11:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 11:51 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Justinian (and other MeFites with sick lawyering skillz), given these revelations by the juror, does Martin's family have any other recourse besides a civil case? I mean, this juror makes the whole thing out to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Can they sue the state based on these revelations?
(Also, wanted to take a moment to thank you, Justinian, for always keeping a level head in these Zimmerman threads; even though I don't always agree with what you are saying, I absolutely cannot find fault in the way you have said it, and your analysis of this whole situation from a legal standpoint has helped me in my discussions with others.)
posted by lord_wolf at 11:52 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
(Also, wanted to take a moment to thank you, Justinian, for always keeping a level head in these Zimmerman threads; even though I don't always agree with what you are saying, I absolutely cannot find fault in the way you have said it, and your analysis of this whole situation from a legal standpoint has helped me in my discussions with others.)
posted by lord_wolf at 11:52 AM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
I second the praise for Justinian.
The juror's statements can only effect a civil suit, right? I mean they can't revoke the verdict or anything like that.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:54 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
The juror's statements can only effect a civil suit, right? I mean they can't revoke the verdict or anything like that.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:54 AM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
The decision of the jury is pretty sacrosanct for the most part.
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury verdict would not be overturned when the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the course of the trial and deliberations.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury verdict would not be overturned when the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the course of the trial and deliberations.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:55 AM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
I did have (I think) two comments deleted in the other thread for responding to anger directed at me in kind so I can't claim to be perfect. So far I've managed to be nice in this thread though.
posted by Justinian at 11:57 AM on July 16, 2013
posted by Justinian at 11:57 AM on July 16, 2013
just kidding, I'm awesome.
posted by Justinian at 11:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [18 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:57 AM on July 16, 2013 [18 favorites]
It also looks like it only applies to aggravated stalking, not regular stalking, and as I read the Florida law, aggravated stalking requires continuing to engage in the stalking behavior after some sort of court order to stop.
I don't think that's correct. The statute reads:
Moreover, according to (1)(c), a "credible threat" doesn't even have to be explicit:
And, of course, if Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated stalking, then the death of Martin would have been felony murder according to Florida law.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:01 PM on July 16, 2013
I don't think that's correct. The statute reads:
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.There is a fourth point that mentions violating a court order, but the difference between misdemeanor stalking in (2) and aggravated stalking in (3) is only the presence of a "credible threat."
Moreover, according to (1)(c), a "credible threat" doesn't even have to be explicit:
“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.The only thing that gives me pause about whether Zimmerman committed aggravated stalking is the "repeated" clause.
And, of course, if Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated stalking, then the death of Martin would have been felony murder according to Florida law.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:01 PM on July 16, 2013
Oh, lord_wolf, I don't have slick lawyering skillz. I just read some case law on the topics under discussion. Anybody could have done that.
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on July 16, 2013
http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-with-911-call-timing.jpg
According to this map, Martin did not move toward Zimmerman. And Martin was heading toward the direction of his house the entire time. If that map is wrong, please present a more accurate one.
Alright, MisantropicPainforest, I don't think the routes on that map are wrong, I think they show exactly what I described. Yes, Martin went straight toward his father's house (and in fact he told his girlfriend he got there). But the problem is, that is not where he ended up, because it's hundreds of feet from where the confrontation & fight took place. So he had to have gone back, do you see that? From the purple square area back up to the red square, which is close to where Zimmerman had last seen him.
And note that, according to that map, after Martin started running and left the road and Zimmerman lost sight of him, there's no evidence Zimmerman followed him down the path toward his father's, at all. He's talking to 911, he's walking across the cut-through to the other road, and then he turns around and heads back in the direction of his truck. He might go a few steps on the other path, but the fight breaks out at or just south of the T, I don't think that's disputed.
Sorry for belaboring the point, it just seems weird to me that so many people just think, No it couldn't have happened that way, when it straightforwardly appears that it did. It's not like reading the situation this way makes Martin a bad person or Zimmerman a good one.
posted by torticat at 12:06 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
According to this map, Martin did not move toward Zimmerman. And Martin was heading toward the direction of his house the entire time. If that map is wrong, please present a more accurate one.
Alright, MisantropicPainforest, I don't think the routes on that map are wrong, I think they show exactly what I described. Yes, Martin went straight toward his father's house (and in fact he told his girlfriend he got there). But the problem is, that is not where he ended up, because it's hundreds of feet from where the confrontation & fight took place. So he had to have gone back, do you see that? From the purple square area back up to the red square, which is close to where Zimmerman had last seen him.
And note that, according to that map, after Martin started running and left the road and Zimmerman lost sight of him, there's no evidence Zimmerman followed him down the path toward his father's, at all. He's talking to 911, he's walking across the cut-through to the other road, and then he turns around and heads back in the direction of his truck. He might go a few steps on the other path, but the fight breaks out at or just south of the T, I don't think that's disputed.
Sorry for belaboring the point, it just seems weird to me that so many people just think, No it couldn't have happened that way, when it straightforwardly appears that it did. It's not like reading the situation this way makes Martin a bad person or Zimmerman a good one.
posted by torticat at 12:06 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Juror B37 seemed to indicate she ignored the judge's instruction.
So not only did Zimmerman disregard instructions from the authorities to stay away from Martin, not only did he stalk Martin and lie about it, not only was there no DNA evidence of Zimmerman being beaten up by Martin which he also lied about, but a juror ignored instructions from the authorities to disregard testimony about Zimmerman's "honesty"? Someone needs to go to jail — if not the murderer, then at least a prosecutor or two for their repeated and colossal fuck-ups.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:10 PM on July 16, 2013 [12 favorites]
So not only did Zimmerman disregard instructions from the authorities to stay away from Martin, not only did he stalk Martin and lie about it, not only was there no DNA evidence of Zimmerman being beaten up by Martin which he also lied about, but a juror ignored instructions from the authorities to disregard testimony about Zimmerman's "honesty"? Someone needs to go to jail — if not the murderer, then at least a prosecutor or two for their repeated and colossal fuck-ups.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:10 PM on July 16, 2013 [12 favorites]
Maybe its just me, but I want juror B37 to write a book so we can see just how fucked from top to bottom this whole thing is.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:16 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 12:16 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yes, Martin went straight toward his father's house (and in fact he told his girlfriend he got there).
From the transcript:
GIRLFRIEND: I said, ‘Keep running.’ He said he ain’t gonna run. ‘Cause he said he is right by his father’s house. And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again. He’s behind him. I said, ‘Run!’ He said he was not going to run. I knew he was not going to run because he was out of breath. And then he was getting excited, the guy’s getting close to him. I told him, ‘Run!’ And I told him, ‘Keep running!’ He not going to run. I tell him, ‘Why are you not running?’ He said ’I’m not gonna.’ He was tired. I know he was tired.
right by != at
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
From the transcript:
GIRLFRIEND: I said, ‘Keep running.’ He said he ain’t gonna run. ‘Cause he said he is right by his father’s house. And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again. He’s behind him. I said, ‘Run!’ He said he was not going to run. I knew he was not going to run because he was out of breath. And then he was getting excited, the guy’s getting close to him. I told him, ‘Run!’ And I told him, ‘Keep running!’ He not going to run. I tell him, ‘Why are you not running?’ He said ’I’m not gonna.’ He was tired. I know he was tired.
right by != at
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yeah I missed the first type of aggravated stalking. It would have been interesting to see the prosecution argue stalking as a charge. It feels like in a lot of these high profile cases prosecutors shoot for a home run, rather than charging every little thing which is more typical of prosecutors in my experience.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
torticat, Rachel Jeantel's account paints a different picture than your version. It very much sounds like Martin and Zimmerman did in fact lose sight of each other for a little bit, but her story makes it sound like Zimmerman is the one who reacquired Martin.
lord_wolf, I know we don't have timestamps on what he said to her when, but I thought it might be like this. Martin heads down the path and out of sight of Zimmerman and toward his father's house. (They are definitely out of sight of each other while Z is still on the phone with 911.) A minute later, Trayvon looks back toward the T and sees Zimmerman's gotten out of his car and is wandering around up there, and he tells Jeantel that the creep is still following him. She tells him to run, and he says no. The way I remember it was that he said, "No, I'm not running any more," and then added that he was at his father's house. And then the confrontation/end of call happened a bit after that.
But I could be wrong, I want to listen to RJ's actual testimony to see what she said in court. I do think there were conflicting reports over the past year of what was said on the phone (which is to be expected), so there might just not be any clarity to be had.
It's definitely the case that the fight/tussle was on immediately after the call dropped, because the first 911 call from a neighbor was only seconds later, and you can hear the yells for help for the next 40 seconds.
posted by torticat at 12:20 PM on July 16, 2013
lord_wolf, I know we don't have timestamps on what he said to her when, but I thought it might be like this. Martin heads down the path and out of sight of Zimmerman and toward his father's house. (They are definitely out of sight of each other while Z is still on the phone with 911.) A minute later, Trayvon looks back toward the T and sees Zimmerman's gotten out of his car and is wandering around up there, and he tells Jeantel that the creep is still following him. She tells him to run, and he says no. The way I remember it was that he said, "No, I'm not running any more," and then added that he was at his father's house. And then the confrontation/end of call happened a bit after that.
But I could be wrong, I want to listen to RJ's actual testimony to see what she said in court. I do think there were conflicting reports over the past year of what was said on the phone (which is to be expected), so there might just not be any clarity to be had.
It's definitely the case that the fight/tussle was on immediately after the call dropped, because the first 911 call from a neighbor was only seconds later, and you can hear the yells for help for the next 40 seconds.
posted by torticat at 12:20 PM on July 16, 2013
Someone needs to go to jail — if not the murderer, then at least a prosecutor or two for their repeated and colossal fuck-ups.Potential Black Juror In Zimmerman Trial Was Dropped By Prosecution For Watching Fox News
I did not know about this, and in retrospect it certainly seems like a "colossal fuck-up" by the prosecution.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:21 PM on July 16, 2013
Are there official transcripts and if so where?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:21 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:21 PM on July 16, 2013
B37: ... [officer Chris Serino's stricken testimony] made a big impression on me.
ALLEN: ... Juror B37 seemed to indicate she ignored the judge's instruction.
Anatomy of a Murder:
Manion: How can a jury disregard what it's already heard?
Biegler: It can't, Lieutenant. It can't.” -
posted by dgaicun at 12:22 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
ALLEN: ... Juror B37 seemed to indicate she ignored the judge's instruction.
Anatomy of a Murder:
Manion: How can a jury disregard what it's already heard?
Biegler: It can't, Lieutenant. It can't.” -
posted by dgaicun at 12:22 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
BobbyVan: " I did not know about this, and in retrospect it certainly seems like a "colossal fuck-up" by the prosecution."
Why?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:22 PM on July 16, 2013
Why?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:22 PM on July 16, 2013
Seriously, tonycpsu? If I were prosecuting this case I'd want as many blacks on the jury as possible.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:24 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by BobbyVan at 12:24 PM on July 16, 2013
I don't know what their strategy was, but one way to argue for Murder in the second degree is to argue that the death occurred in the commission of aggravated stalking. (You can see it in point (3) of the murder statute.)
I haven't read the trial transcript -- is it available? -- so maybe the prosecution actually did argue in this way, but if so, then the jury really screwed up in not considering the entire set of events but only focusing on the altercation itself because the stalking would have to be established (if it could be established) on the basis of Zimmerman's actions before the altercation. And really, if Zimmerman were guilty of aggravated stalking, then it wouldn't matter at all whether Martin attacked first or if Zimmerman attacked first. That question would just not be relevant.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:24 PM on July 16, 2013
I haven't read the trial transcript -- is it available? -- so maybe the prosecution actually did argue in this way, but if so, then the jury really screwed up in not considering the entire set of events but only focusing on the altercation itself because the stalking would have to be established (if it could be established) on the basis of Zimmerman's actions before the altercation. And really, if Zimmerman were guilty of aggravated stalking, then it wouldn't matter at all whether Martin attacked first or if Zimmerman attacked first. That question would just not be relevant.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:24 PM on July 16, 2013
Oops, on non-preview, what Misantropic posted from the transcript. Which actually fits my speculation, except that Zimmerman could not have been getting closer and closer to Martin's father's house; Martin had to be going back at that point toward where the confrontation happened. No? If he had been right by his father's house, but the fight took place 500 feet back, by the T in the path?
posted by torticat at 12:25 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by torticat at 12:25 PM on July 16, 2013
BobbyVan: "Seriously, tonycpsu? If I were prosecuting this case I'd want as many blacks on the jury as possible."
Why? A white juror who shows themselves to be sympathetic toward blacks in voir dire may be more desirable than an African American who watches Fox News. There are a lot of Herman Cains, Alan Keyeses, and Clarence Thomases out there.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:26 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why? A white juror who shows themselves to be sympathetic toward blacks in voir dire may be more desirable than an African American who watches Fox News. There are a lot of Herman Cains, Alan Keyeses, and Clarence Thomases out there.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:26 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
[Prosecutor Angela] Corey, 58, was chosen by Florida Gov. Rick Scott in March 2012 as special prosecutor to investigate whether charges should be brought against Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Martin after police had decided not to charge the 29-year-old self-appointed neighborhood-watch volunteer.
What incentive did she have to do get a guilty conviction?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:27 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
What incentive did she have to do get a guilty conviction?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:27 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
That the prosecution didn't consider race to be relevant, and that the jury didn't discuss race at all during their 16-hour deliberations, is frankly stunning to me. From the perspective of zealous advocacy, how could the prosecution not bring this up as a consideration and motivation for the events that transpired? At this point I'm mostly just angry as hell at Corey and her team, and how satisfied they seem to be that justice was done.
posted by naju at 12:38 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by naju at 12:38 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
There are a lot of Herman Cains, Alan Keyeses, and Clarence Thomases out there.
I'll leave aside the disgusting implication in that comment, and just note that while I'm not aware that Herman Cain or Alan Keyes have said much about this case, I do know that Clarence Thomas is no shrinking violet when it comes to blacks defending themselves.
I'll leave aside the disgusting implication in that comment, and just note that while I'm not aware that Herman Cain or Alan Keyes have said much about this case, I do know that Clarence Thomas is no shrinking violet when it comes to blacks defending themselves.
In a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto, he goes on to say, "Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence."posted by BobbyVan at 12:39 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
This was no muttering from an Uncle Tom, as many black people have accused him of being. His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X. He even cites the slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner -- implying that white America has long wanted to take guns away from black people out of fear that they would seek revenge for centuries of racial oppression.
The real question is why are we dissecting the movements of the teenager being stalked through the dark by a man who got out of his car 'in the defense of his neighborhood' against the advice of a police department employee that wasn't actually a policeman (because somehow that should make a difference?). I am glad that so many of us would be cool hand luke and wouldn't be scared and full of adrenalin in that predicament. Howsoever that may be, the incontrovertible fact is that the whole terrible event could have been averted if Zimmerman had stayed in his car like a normal sane person would.
posted by winna at 12:40 PM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by winna at 12:40 PM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
BobbyVan: "I'll leave aside the disgusting implication in that comment"
Which would be what, exactly?
You're saying that an African American on the jury will automatically be more sympathetic to an African American victim in a trial. I'm saying that there are plenty of African Americans who, for political reasons that would correlate highly with watching Fox News, would be more inclined to favor gun rights over any racial identity concerns that may exist, and I named some of them who I feel would be more reflexively pro-gun than they would be reflexively pro-Black victim.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:47 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Which would be what, exactly?
You're saying that an African American on the jury will automatically be more sympathetic to an African American victim in a trial. I'm saying that there are plenty of African Americans who, for political reasons that would correlate highly with watching Fox News, would be more inclined to favor gun rights over any racial identity concerns that may exist, and I named some of them who I feel would be more reflexively pro-gun than they would be reflexively pro-Black victim.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:47 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
More and more, I believe the prosecutor deliberately threw the case. Purposefully did a shite job of it.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:49 PM on July 16, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 12:49 PM on July 16, 2013 [11 favorites]
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury verdict would not be overturned when the jury had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the course of the trial and deliberations.
Oh. My. God.
Within the past 48 hours or so, I have become more strongly convinced than ever to pray that no one I know and love is ever caught up in the American legal system in any way.
It's looking more and more like a big plate of status-quo-serving-and-big-business-protecting shit every day.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:54 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Oh. My. God.
Within the past 48 hours or so, I have become more strongly convinced than ever to pray that no one I know and love is ever caught up in the American legal system in any way.
It's looking more and more like a big plate of status-quo-serving-and-big-business-protecting shit every day.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:54 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
tonycpsu: It seemed that you were implying that black conservatives (assuming we're using "Fox News-viewing" as a proxy for "conservative-minded," a reasonable supposition) were somehow "less black," or are sorts of racial apostates or traitors. If I read you wrong, my apologies.
It's true that you'll find varying levels of racial identity/attachment in the black community (as with any ethnic group), but it's hard to conclude that Juror B37 was more sympathetic to blacks than an actual black person who happens to watch Fox News.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2013
It's true that you'll find varying levels of racial identity/attachment in the black community (as with any ethnic group), but it's hard to conclude that Juror B37 was more sympathetic to blacks than an actual black person who happens to watch Fox News.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2013
The only thing that gives me pause about whether Zimmerman committed aggravated stalking is the "repeated" clause.
No, you'd have to prove "maliciously" which couldn't be done in this case with this jury. We know that because the juror said as much in the interview. The jury did not believe Zimmerman acted with malice; they thought he had good intentions and just went overboard.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, you'd have to prove "maliciously" which couldn't be done in this case with this jury. We know that because the juror said as much in the interview. The jury did not believe Zimmerman acted with malice; they thought he had good intentions and just went overboard.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
What did I do wrong during my jury service? There was no alcohol, pot, cocaine, deviant sex, dancing bears, or mariachi band. How do I sign up for the other kind?
posted by Justinian at 1:00 PM on July 16, 2013 [17 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:00 PM on July 16, 2013 [17 favorites]
i've never seen the movie Idiocracy, so my head keeps imagining the movie with characters like this juror. Although I think that movie would be a little darker than the one I heard about.
posted by angrycat at 1:04 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by angrycat at 1:04 PM on July 16, 2013
What did I do wrong during my jury service? There was no alcohol, pot, cocaine, deviant sex, dancing bears, or mariachi band. How do I sign up for the other kind?
Well, now I totally know what to ask the prosecutor for tomorrow when I show up for jury duty! Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by jetlagaddict at 1:05 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, now I totally know what to ask the prosecutor for tomorrow when I show up for jury duty! Thanks, Metafilter!
posted by jetlagaddict at 1:05 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
The only thing that gives me pause about whether Zimmerman committed aggravated stalking is the "repeated" clause.
I think you could construct a reasonable argument given that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being advised by an expert (not a uniformed police officer, sure but a trained law enforcement employee acting in the context of their expertise) not to do so. (IANAL)
posted by kagredon at 1:08 PM on July 16, 2013
I think you could construct a reasonable argument given that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being advised by an expert (not a uniformed police officer, sure but a trained law enforcement employee acting in the context of their expertise) not to do so. (IANAL)
posted by kagredon at 1:08 PM on July 16, 2013
I think the much more likely way to have gotten a conviction was to go for some sort of reckless endangerment. That way you don't have to show Zimmerman was malicious, only a moron.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly. The prosecution had to have known that the defense would claim self defense. Why in the world would they do something that allowed the burden of proof to shift to them? Absolutely mind-boggling.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:16 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:16 PM on July 16, 2013
"I was defending myself from the child I was chasing and being asked by authorities to stop chasing."
posted by grubi at 1:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by grubi at 1:18 PM on July 16, 2013 [13 favorites]
No, you'd have to prove "maliciously" which couldn't be done in this case with this jury.
Fair enough. As I said, the only thing that would give me pause is whether what Zimmerman did was repeated in the sense required by the law. I am fully persuaded that he acted maliciously. As you say, the jury wasn't persuaded.
But I wonder if the jury would have been persuaded had the prosecution made race and stalking the foci of the case. If they had framed everything they argued in terms of a man stalking a person of a race he didn't like, would they have convinced people of malice? Maybe not, but I think that's the way I would have argued the case. You know, if I were a lawyer. And employed as a prosecutor in Florida.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:34 PM on July 16, 2013
Fair enough. As I said, the only thing that would give me pause is whether what Zimmerman did was repeated in the sense required by the law. I am fully persuaded that he acted maliciously. As you say, the jury wasn't persuaded.
But I wonder if the jury would have been persuaded had the prosecution made race and stalking the foci of the case. If they had framed everything they argued in terms of a man stalking a person of a race he didn't like, would they have convinced people of malice? Maybe not, but I think that's the way I would have argued the case. You know, if I were a lawyer. And employed as a prosecutor in Florida.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:34 PM on July 16, 2013
BobbyVan: " It's true that you'll find varying levels of racial identity/attachment in the black community (as with any ethnic group), but it's hard to conclude that Juror B37 was more sympathetic to blacks than an actual black person who happens to watch Fox News."
You get that the voir dire process isn't just pick the ones you want, right? Both sides have to make tradeoffs to arrive at a set of jurors that they can live with. You don't get a chance to disqualify every juror you think might not go your way, so you play the percentages and hope for the best, and like I said, to me, Fox News watching is more of a red flag than "having more melanin" is a green flag.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:39 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
You get that the voir dire process isn't just pick the ones you want, right? Both sides have to make tradeoffs to arrive at a set of jurors that they can live with. You don't get a chance to disqualify every juror you think might not go your way, so you play the percentages and hope for the best, and like I said, to me, Fox News watching is more of a red flag than "having more melanin" is a green flag.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:39 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
In fact, in this case the defense successfully challenged the prosecution's peremptory challenge of one or two jurors on the grounds that they were singling out white women for exclusion and a few of the prosecution's challenges were rescinded by the judge. In other words O'Mara called out the prosecution for using peremptory challenges on jurors for no other reason than they were white women and the judge agreed with him.
So picking a jury is tough.
posted by Justinian at 1:44 PM on July 16, 2013
So picking a jury is tough.
posted by Justinian at 1:44 PM on July 16, 2013
Questlove: Trayvon Martin and I Ain’t Shit
posted by phaedon at 1:51 PM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
posted by phaedon at 1:51 PM on July 16, 2013 [23 favorites]
there's also the fact that anyone who's spent a lot of time consuming media coverage surrounding a high-profile trial will be viewed as a problematic jury choice, characterizing it in terms of "disqualified for watching Fox News!" seems kind of dishonest.
posted by kagredon at 1:53 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by kagredon at 1:53 PM on July 16, 2013
I'd want to bounce Fox viewers because it's pretty well demonstrated that Fox viewers believe debunked bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Wow, that ?uestlove article could be a FPP on its own. Not just for the perspective on Martin but for the perspective on the schroegingers rapist type situation from a guy who is very self aware that he can be perceived as scary at times.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:12 PM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:12 PM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
More and more, I believe the prosecutor deliberately threw the case. Purposefully did a shite job of it.
I've been thinking this since the trial started honestly. It's a bit of a "controversial" opinion, but this was totally a show trial.
I pretty much said it above, but this is some straight pre-civil rights movement in the south shit. Look at how they didn't discuss race at all, and how that discussion in general has been off the table(to the point that even martins parents didnt want to open the ark of the covenant there).
The defense and the state wanted the same thing. The rest was pretty much pro wrestling.
This could have been close to a slam dunk if they picked a lesser charge that would qualify for the "use a gun and you're done" 10-20-life modifier(and possibly as life, he fired a gun and someone died). They went for a home run knowing they wouldn't hit the ball.
I mean for fucks sake, they didnt even want to arrest him much less charge him. They've been like little kids being told to stop playing videogames and wash their hands for dinner the entire time.
It almost surprises me anyone believes they wanted to win, or that this ever had a chance of sticking.
posted by emptythought at 2:14 PM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
I've been thinking this since the trial started honestly. It's a bit of a "controversial" opinion, but this was totally a show trial.
I pretty much said it above, but this is some straight pre-civil rights movement in the south shit. Look at how they didn't discuss race at all, and how that discussion in general has been off the table(to the point that even martins parents didnt want to open the ark of the covenant there).
The defense and the state wanted the same thing. The rest was pretty much pro wrestling.
This could have been close to a slam dunk if they picked a lesser charge that would qualify for the "use a gun and you're done" 10-20-life modifier(and possibly as life, he fired a gun and someone died). They went for a home run knowing they wouldn't hit the ball.
I mean for fucks sake, they didnt even want to arrest him much less charge him. They've been like little kids being told to stop playing videogames and wash their hands for dinner the entire time.
It almost surprises me anyone believes they wanted to win, or that this ever had a chance of sticking.
posted by emptythought at 2:14 PM on July 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
yeah, I don't want to bring in a whole sexism/racism comparison into this thread, but I read "Seriously, imagine a life in which you think of other people's safety and comfort first, before your own. You're programmed and taught that from the gate. It's like the opposite of entitlement," and thought "you mean, imagine being female?" But not in a snarky way, really--just in "oh, okay, yes, that, except with the extra dimension of being treated as intimidating and violent, no matter how neutral your behavior is." It is like the most perfect 2-sentence distillation of the difference between having privilege and not.
posted by kagredon at 2:17 PM on July 16, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 2:17 PM on July 16, 2013 [12 favorites]
Look at how they didn't discuss race at all
To be fair to the prosecutors, Judge Nelson forbade them from using terms like 'racial profiling,' which seems like it would have made this line of prosecution very difficult.
posted by dsfan at 2:31 PM on July 16, 2013
To be fair to the prosecutors, Judge Nelson forbade them from using terms like 'racial profiling,' which seems like it would have made this line of prosecution very difficult.
posted by dsfan at 2:31 PM on July 16, 2013
Judge Nelson forbade them from using terms like 'racial profiling,'
Why?
posted by cashman at 2:44 PM on July 16, 2013
Why?
posted by cashman at 2:44 PM on July 16, 2013
Because it was racial profiling.
posted by Artw at 2:52 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:52 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Regardless of what the actual "plausible" answer is, it's because that discussion was off the table, like it's been repeatedly stated in this thread by me and others.
You're not allowed to talk about the elephant in the room because Racism Is Over, and racist ass white people forbid anyone to ever call them out.
And besides, in there minds that just unfairly weights the prosecutions argument because there's so many other reasons this situation was wrong/right without even bring that up! right! duh. Ok no one look at the elephant.
posted by emptythought at 2:55 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
You're not allowed to talk about the elephant in the room because Racism Is Over, and racist ass white people forbid anyone to ever call them out.
And besides, in there minds that just unfairly weights the prosecutions argument because there's so many other reasons this situation was wrong/right without even bring that up! right! duh. Ok no one look at the elephant.
posted by emptythought at 2:55 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
More and more, I believe the prosecutor deliberately threw the case. Purposefully did a shite job of it.
I do my best to avoid conspiracy theory stuff in general, but I am thinking the same thing. The difference is that they appear to have been really, really savvy in how they went about it this time. Nothing stands out as a burning flag, but I just don't buy the whole outcome.
Doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
posted by lampshade at 2:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
I do my best to avoid conspiracy theory stuff in general, but I am thinking the same thing. The difference is that they appear to have been really, really savvy in how they went about it this time. Nothing stands out as a burning flag, but I just don't buy the whole outcome.
Doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
posted by lampshade at 2:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why?
I don't know--my recollection, and I'm not positive on this, is that she ruled on the motion from the bench, so there's not a written order with legal reasoning.
posted by dsfan at 2:59 PM on July 16, 2013
I don't know--my recollection, and I'm not positive on this, is that she ruled on the motion from the bench, so there's not a written order with legal reasoning.
posted by dsfan at 2:59 PM on July 16, 2013
Yeah; the prosecutors wanted to argue the racial aspects of the case and the judge forbade it. So while they made a bunch of mistakes, failure to go after the racial profiling wasn't one of them.
As to overcharging, I've said that was a mistake. But it wasn't a mistake specific to this case; it's something prosecutors always do. They massively overcharge you in an attempt to force a plea deal to a lesser charge. Failing that they hope the jury throws the book at you even if it isn't justified. Failing that they put forward lesser included offenses and figure the overcharging will push the jury to compromise on a lesser verdict even if some jurors want Not Guilty.
It's done every single day hundreds of times and mostly to the great detriment of young black men across the country. Angela Corey is known for it. It just so happens it bit them in the ass on this one case. But it's bog-standard.
posted by Justinian at 3:04 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
As to overcharging, I've said that was a mistake. But it wasn't a mistake specific to this case; it's something prosecutors always do. They massively overcharge you in an attempt to force a plea deal to a lesser charge. Failing that they hope the jury throws the book at you even if it isn't justified. Failing that they put forward lesser included offenses and figure the overcharging will push the jury to compromise on a lesser verdict even if some jurors want Not Guilty.
It's done every single day hundreds of times and mostly to the great detriment of young black men across the country. Angela Corey is known for it. It just so happens it bit them in the ass on this one case. But it's bog-standard.
posted by Justinian at 3:04 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
I should say bog standard and awful since it forces even innocent men (and it is mostly, though not entirely, men) to plead to crimes they didn't commit because they are afraid of long prison sentences if they do not take the offered plea deal.
posted by Justinian at 3:06 PM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:06 PM on July 16, 2013 [6 favorites]
As to overcharging, I've said that was a mistake. But it wasn't a mistake specific to this case; it's something prosecutors always do.
But here is the thing about overcharging – does it not seem odd that after 200+ years of legal stuff in this country, not to mention hundreds of years across the world (actually thousands), that a prosecutor would make such obvious mistake? When I was watching that press conference with Angela Corey, those on stage repeatedly patted themselves on the back for what basically turns out to be incompetence. They rejoiced in their self-proclaimed expertise, yet the simple fact is they lost the case – not because of some crazy wild-card witness or piece of evidence – but because they prosecuted the wrong level of the case.
Of course there are all the different aspects of the case they did or did not get into and I am sure others have a better handle on what was left out, left in or should have been left out or in. However, I keep coming back to the simple idea that the case, in the way it was prosecuted, was doomed to fail. Not in a extraordinary, Hindenburg-esque flaming ball of judicial destruction, but maybe just enough to just not meet the requirements for conviction.
One would think that after the Casey Anthony debacle, they would have given a second thought to what they were going to charge. Or maybe they did, and used it as a template. Either way, it seems the state of Florida has gotten what it wanted.
posted by lampshade at 3:46 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
But here is the thing about overcharging – does it not seem odd that after 200+ years of legal stuff in this country, not to mention hundreds of years across the world (actually thousands), that a prosecutor would make such obvious mistake? When I was watching that press conference with Angela Corey, those on stage repeatedly patted themselves on the back for what basically turns out to be incompetence. They rejoiced in their self-proclaimed expertise, yet the simple fact is they lost the case – not because of some crazy wild-card witness or piece of evidence – but because they prosecuted the wrong level of the case.
Of course there are all the different aspects of the case they did or did not get into and I am sure others have a better handle on what was left out, left in or should have been left out or in. However, I keep coming back to the simple idea that the case, in the way it was prosecuted, was doomed to fail. Not in a extraordinary, Hindenburg-esque flaming ball of judicial destruction, but maybe just enough to just not meet the requirements for conviction.
One would think that after the Casey Anthony debacle, they would have given a second thought to what they were going to charge. Or maybe they did, and used it as a template. Either way, it seems the state of Florida has gotten what it wanted.
posted by lampshade at 3:46 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
Why?
Nelson's ruling may have had something to do with the DOJ/FBI investigation that concluded July 12, 2012, investigating charges that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights and was a racist. They interviewed many friends, neighbors and co-workers and found no basis to claims that Zimmerman was a racist or that his shooting Martin was a racially motivated.
Orlando Sentinal
posted by snaparapans at 3:47 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Nelson's ruling may have had something to do with the DOJ/FBI investigation that concluded July 12, 2012, investigating charges that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights and was a racist. They interviewed many friends, neighbors and co-workers and found no basis to claims that Zimmerman was a racist or that his shooting Martin was a racially motivated.
Orlando Sentinal
posted by snaparapans at 3:47 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh I'm looking for an actual explanation or something that comes from Nelson herself. Not really interested in speculation, but I appreciate the research.
posted by cashman at 3:51 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by cashman at 3:51 PM on July 16, 2013
Regarding overcharging... it may be that Corey saw 2nd Degree murder as a way around self-defense. She knew that Zimmerman was claiming self-defense and most other charges would have resulted in justifiable homicide had self-defense prevailed. For 2nd degree murder self-defense does not matter.
posted by snaparapans at 3:52 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 3:52 PM on July 16, 2013
Oh I'm looking for an actual explanation or something that comes from Nelson herself.
here is a video of Nelson's ruling
posted by snaparapans at 3:55 PM on July 16, 2013
here is a video of Nelson's ruling
posted by snaparapans at 3:55 PM on July 16, 2013
They interviewed many friends, neighbors and co-workers and found no basis to claims that Zimmerman was a racist.
Indeed, people are notoriously forthcoming about calling a judge's gun-toting would-be vigilante son who has already killed someone a racist. No one could possibly be concerned about retaliation!
posted by winna at 3:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Indeed, people are notoriously forthcoming about calling a judge's gun-toting would-be vigilante son who has already killed someone a racist. No one could possibly be concerned about retaliation!
posted by winna at 3:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
"The Persistence of Racism in America"
A 2008 report by the Florida Supreme Court faulted the continuing lack of diversity among prosecutors, judges, court staffs and attorneys across the Sunshine State as contributing to both bias and diminishing “the concept of fairness.”"America Isn’t Colorblind: We Need to Talk About Racism"
That 2008 report was a follow up on the Florida Supreme Court’s seminal 1990 report about race bias in the justice system that criticized the fact that minorities were “underrepresented” as judges in that state. Only one minority judge (a Hispanic) served among the 16 judges on duty when Zimmerman killed Martin in the judicial district encompassing Sanford, a small town about 20-miles from mega-theme-park famed Orlando....
The denial of racism as an element operative in the acquittal of Zimmerman is similar to denials evident in responses some Florida judges provided Florida Supreme Court investigators’ for that 2008 report.
When answering a survey question, 70% of white judges in Florida insisted courts in their state treated whites and blacks alike – an opinion inconsistent with the findings of Florida Supreme Court investigative reports released in 1990, 2000 and 2008.
Although racially separate water fountains are a thing of the segregationist past and the U.S. twice elected a black man as president, separate and unequal justice remains.
Largely lacking from the discussion, unfortunately, is a clear analysis of where, whether, and how race fits into the case and its aftermath. For all the talk about a new conversation on race in the age of Obama, the Zimmerman trial serves as a bitter reminder that Americans, by and large, do not tackle this touchy subject—and when we do, the term of the debate are cramped, unclear, emotionally charged, and unlikely to lead to insight or shared understanding.posted by audi alteram partem at 4:08 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
It’s not that people aren’t trying. The problem is that Americans, wishing to bring about a colorblind society, often end up being colormute—fearful of offending, we simply clam up about race and racism, confining our blunt, not-politically-correct sentiments or questions to small groups of trusted friends and family.
Then, when we attempt a public discussion, participants start out in different mental and moral universes, with almost nothing in the way of shared assumptions, facts, or understanding of how society works. It’s a formula for conversational disaster, after which people decide it’s better to keep their mouths shut—remaining colormute in a society that desperately needs a rational conversation about race.
>>Part 1 of Anderson Cooper's interview with juror B37, Part 2. I can't even.
>Folks, don't watch part 2 if you want to keep your sanity.
I've been trying my damndest to keep from commenting on this thread, but really.
Intellectually speaking, I'm totally on board with the comments up-thread about institutional racism, the way every individual can be dead-honest convinced that they are not acting in a racist way at all, and yet the institutional and society-level outcome can still, undeniably, be racist--more because of deep-set attitudes and social structures than 'evil racists' per se making 'evil racist' choices.
But still, in the back of my mind, I'm still thinking, "Yes, but people in an official capacity, people deciding life and death, people acting as judge or jury--surely those people are going to make a special effort to rise beyond their own individual attitudes and biases. And in the 21 Century U. S. of A., what with our long and deplorable history of racism and all, surely everyone is going to make a concerted effort to overcompensate in favor of absolute non-racist, non-classist, non-biased absolute fairness, if anything--especially when working in an official capacity and when speaking on the record in front of national audience."
But after hearing juror B37 speak, we can say, quite definitively: Nope. Not a chance.
I mean every single judgement she makes, every single decision, every single reason she gives for which witness she trusts, which she doesn't, every opinion she expresses, and every other detail of the situation--just absolutely reeks from top to bottom with racist and classist thinking and stereotyping.
And then when Cooper asks if the jury discussed the racial aspects--Oh, no! Of course not! Why, it didn't even enter our poor little heads!
Yes, indeed. When the proper judgements about who to trust and who to not, who's on "our team" and who is not, who's the "good guy" and who's the bad--well, yeah, when your hindbrain has made all those vital discriminations automatically, then the whole nasty old concept of 'racism' doesn't even have to pass across the forebrain at all.
In the immortal words of eunoia--I can't even. I really just can't. There are no words.
posted by flug at 4:14 PM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
>Folks, don't watch part 2 if you want to keep your sanity.
I've been trying my damndest to keep from commenting on this thread, but really.
Intellectually speaking, I'm totally on board with the comments up-thread about institutional racism, the way every individual can be dead-honest convinced that they are not acting in a racist way at all, and yet the institutional and society-level outcome can still, undeniably, be racist--more because of deep-set attitudes and social structures than 'evil racists' per se making 'evil racist' choices.
But still, in the back of my mind, I'm still thinking, "Yes, but people in an official capacity, people deciding life and death, people acting as judge or jury--surely those people are going to make a special effort to rise beyond their own individual attitudes and biases. And in the 21 Century U. S. of A., what with our long and deplorable history of racism and all, surely everyone is going to make a concerted effort to overcompensate in favor of absolute non-racist, non-classist, non-biased absolute fairness, if anything--especially when working in an official capacity and when speaking on the record in front of national audience."
But after hearing juror B37 speak, we can say, quite definitively: Nope. Not a chance.
I mean every single judgement she makes, every single decision, every single reason she gives for which witness she trusts, which she doesn't, every opinion she expresses, and every other detail of the situation--just absolutely reeks from top to bottom with racist and classist thinking and stereotyping.
And then when Cooper asks if the jury discussed the racial aspects--Oh, no! Of course not! Why, it didn't even enter our poor little heads!
Yes, indeed. When the proper judgements about who to trust and who to not, who's on "our team" and who is not, who's the "good guy" and who's the bad--well, yeah, when your hindbrain has made all those vital discriminations automatically, then the whole nasty old concept of 'racism' doesn't even have to pass across the forebrain at all.
In the immortal words of eunoia--I can't even. I really just can't. There are no words.
posted by flug at 4:14 PM on July 16, 2013 [15 favorites]
George Zimmerman Wants African-Americans to Apologize to Him
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:22 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:22 PM on July 16, 2013
......just absolutely reeks from top to bottom with racist and classist thinking and stereotyping.
She seems far less interested in finding out what happened and far more in finding ways to justify GZ's behavior.
posted by lampshade at 4:25 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
She seems far less interested in finding out what happened and far more in finding ways to justify GZ's behavior.
posted by lampshade at 4:25 PM on July 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
oh boy some days it would be comforting to believe in hell
posted by angrycat at 4:34 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 4:34 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
flap your link doesn't work
Hmmm, you're right. Let's try that again.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:37 PM on July 16, 2013
Hmmm, you're right. Let's try that again.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:37 PM on July 16, 2013
Wow, if he's trying to avoid someone attacking him he's sure not doing a very good job. It's almost like he's baiting/trolling america. The only thing that isn't implicit is some kind of "u mad lol?"
Maybe he's looking forward to more self defense(maybe that should be in quotes...) shooting opportunities?
posted by emptythought at 4:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe he's looking forward to more self defense(maybe that should be in quotes...) shooting opportunities?
posted by emptythought at 4:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Zimmerman said, “I can’t guess to what their motives are. I would just ask for an apology. I mean if I did something that was wrong. I would apologize.”
O RLY NOW
posted by kagredon at 4:44 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
O RLY NOW
posted by kagredon at 4:44 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Just a note: I believe the Zimmerman on Hannity videos are from last year.
posted by maggieb at 4:47 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by maggieb at 4:47 PM on July 16, 2013
You are not making it easy to remain committed to the rule of law and the idea that even complete assholes deserve a not guilty verdict if the state can't prove the case, George Zimmerman. Please shut the hell up now.
posted by Justinian at 4:48 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:48 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ahhh, yes that's his interview from well before the trial. Still a bad thing but at least I want to stab him in the face slightly less often. But still stab.
posted by Justinian at 4:50 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:50 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I mean if I did something that was wrong. I would apologize.
Killing someone isn't wrong? Alrighty then!
posted by Big_B at 4:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Killing someone isn't wrong? Alrighty then!
posted by Big_B at 4:58 PM on July 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.
posted by Rhomboid at 5:31 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Rhomboid at 5:31 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
The CNN panel discussing the interview with this juror is... not terrible. One could almost call it interesting and thoughtful. I don't know how to feel about that. It doesn't make sense.
They are hitting hard on prosecutorial incompetence. Geragos even semi-jokingly said the prosecutors must have thrown the case. The consensus (with even the prosecutor guy agreeing) is that there simply was no other verdict the jury could return given the crappy case the prosecution put forward. So I guess the people who really do believe the prosecutors took a dive can point to how terrible the prosecutors performed. I'm pretty sure the words "prosecutorial misconduct" came up.
Still, I don't know what channel this is. It sure isn't what CNN is usually like.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
They are hitting hard on prosecutorial incompetence. Geragos even semi-jokingly said the prosecutors must have thrown the case. The consensus (with even the prosecutor guy agreeing) is that there simply was no other verdict the jury could return given the crappy case the prosecution put forward. So I guess the people who really do believe the prosecutors took a dive can point to how terrible the prosecutors performed. I'm pretty sure the words "prosecutorial misconduct" came up.
Still, I don't know what channel this is. It sure isn't what CNN is usually like.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Domestic Violence and George Zimmerman's Defense
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
Taking the jury out of the mix, the prosecution was so unfocused I can imagine this judge ruling for Zimmerman had it been a bench trial.
posted by maggieb at 5:53 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by maggieb at 5:53 PM on July 16, 2013
To be fair to the prosecutors, Judge Nelson forbade them from using terms like 'racial profiling,' which seems like it would have made this line of prosecution very difficult.
She allowed "profiling" but not "racial profiling." Which the defense was still not happy with, because they argued that jurors were going to hear "racial profiling" if profiling was discussed at all--which is no doubt true.
I don't see why the judge disallowed the word "racial," but I'm no expert. I suppose maybe because it was indisputable that Zimmerman profiled Martin (as "suspicious" and "up to no good" and so on) but technically unknown whether race was part of the basis for that?
posted by torticat at 6:12 PM on July 16, 2013
She allowed "profiling" but not "racial profiling." Which the defense was still not happy with, because they argued that jurors were going to hear "racial profiling" if profiling was discussed at all--which is no doubt true.
I don't see why the judge disallowed the word "racial," but I'm no expert. I suppose maybe because it was indisputable that Zimmerman profiled Martin (as "suspicious" and "up to no good" and so on) but technically unknown whether race was part of the basis for that?
posted by torticat at 6:12 PM on July 16, 2013
(To be clear, I do think Zimmerman acted on the basis of racial profiling. Just speculating about why the distinction might have been made in court.)
posted by torticat at 6:16 PM on July 16, 2013
posted by torticat at 6:16 PM on July 16, 2013
there simply was no other verdict the jury could return given the crappy case the prosecution put forward.
I probably would have acquitted him if I were on the jury, and I think the guy is guilty as shit. Sounds like the case was a disaster.
posted by empath at 7:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I probably would have acquitted him if I were on the jury, and I think the guy is guilty as shit. Sounds like the case was a disaster.
posted by empath at 7:42 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
4 jurors distance themselves from Juror B37
posted by palomar at 9:05 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by palomar at 9:05 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
4 jurors distance themselves from Juror B37
Over the last few years I've taken to considering my acquaintances and coworkers in a new light. I assess them on the basis of which ones, should I somehow get on the news, would leap at the chance for gettin' on tha' teevee with blithe unconsciousness of how unscrupulous and idiotic they would inevitably appear.
Is the court required to release the names of the jurors, or can they request privacy in any reasonably effective way?
posted by winna at 9:52 PM on July 16, 2013
Over the last few years I've taken to considering my acquaintances and coworkers in a new light. I assess them on the basis of which ones, should I somehow get on the news, would leap at the chance for gettin' on tha' teevee with blithe unconsciousness of how unscrupulous and idiotic they would inevitably appear.
Is the court required to release the names of the jurors, or can they request privacy in any reasonably effective way?
posted by winna at 9:52 PM on July 16, 2013
palomar: "4 jurors distance themselves from Juror B37"
The angry mob is already going after a member of the jury for simply doing her civic duty, just as the Zimmerman cheerleaders in this thread predicted.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
The angry mob is already going after a member of the jury for simply doing her civic duty, just as the Zimmerman cheerleaders in this thread predicted.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:54 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
And when you say "angry mob," you mean "people expressing their opinion on Facebook," right?
posted by KathrynT at 10:13 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:13 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
What? no one is going after this woman, no one even knows her name for fucks sake. And no one is attacking her for "doing her civic duty", the only chiding and anger i've seen is for trying to profit from this. Don't try and twist this to fit the weird narrative you have that people are stalking and harassing the jurors, it just isn't happening.
People already got smacked up thread for saying the same crap. Stop trying to make that dog hunt.
posted by emptythought at 10:14 PM on July 16, 2013
People already got smacked up thread for saying the same crap. Stop trying to make that dog hunt.
posted by emptythought at 10:14 PM on July 16, 2013
You know, I thought about adding {/hamburger}, but I thought the sarcasm was obvious, seeing as I quoted the bit about the other jurors distancing themselves from B37.
I mean, geez, I was one of the people pointing out the absurdity of the "WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE JURORS" silliness.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:19 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
I mean, geez, I was one of the people pointing out the absurdity of the "WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE JURORS" silliness.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:19 PM on July 16, 2013 [4 favorites]
sorry, this thread has gotten so huge that it's almost impossible to find previous comments even if you search for words/phrases you remember them having, much less keep track of who said what 100% of the time.
It's also more that it's one of those arguments people are actually making, so as sarcasm it's hard to distinguish from the genuine tiresome article.
posted by emptythought at 10:22 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's also more that it's one of those arguments people are actually making, so as sarcasm it's hard to distinguish from the genuine tiresome article.
posted by emptythought at 10:22 PM on July 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
palomar: "4 jurors distance themselves from Juror B37"
The angry mob is already going after a member of the jury for simply doing her civic duty, just as the Zimmerman cheerleaders in this thread predicted.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:54 AM on July 17 [1 favorite +] [!]
The funniest part about this comment is the person, whomever they were, who favorited Tony's comment until (I guess?) they realized he was joking.
The lurkers are supporting your hamburger in email, tony!
posted by winna at 10:31 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
The angry mob is already going after a member of the jury for simply doing her civic duty, just as the Zimmerman cheerleaders in this thread predicted.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:54 AM on July 17 [1 favorite +] [!]
The funniest part about this comment is the person, whomever they were, who favorited Tony's comment until (I guess?) they realized he was joking.
The lurkers are supporting your hamburger in email, tony!
posted by winna at 10:31 PM on July 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
robble robble!
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:33 PM on July 16, 2013 [5 favorites]
I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer - can someone with expertise clear this up? From watching the juror interview yesterday it seems like they objectively applied the legal standards incorrectly in this case in a few ways. Off the top of my head:
…
2) They narrowed their focus to the few seconds leading up to and during the physical altercation, and the juror said they specifically did not look at the totality of the events leading up to them. Which is relevant to whether Zimmerman's actions were grossly/culpably negligent. …
I think those are the main statements I flagged that could totally change the outcome of the verdict.
posted by naju at 21:40 on July 16 [5 favorites +] [!]
I didn’t see the entire interview but I think the juror was referring to the jury instruction regarding self defense. According to that instruction, the jury was not allowed to consider what Zimmerman did prior to the first punch being thrown. (He was in a place where he was legally entitled to be so he had no duty to retreat, etc.)
I do think the stalking was relevant to the elements of the crimes charged however, and at a bare minimum, manslaughter was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, under Florida law the self defense claim trumps whatever crime was committed.
posted by Gringos Without Borders at 2:24 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
…
2) They narrowed their focus to the few seconds leading up to and during the physical altercation, and the juror said they specifically did not look at the totality of the events leading up to them. Which is relevant to whether Zimmerman's actions were grossly/culpably negligent. …
I think those are the main statements I flagged that could totally change the outcome of the verdict.
posted by naju at 21:40 on July 16 [5 favorites +] [!]
I didn’t see the entire interview but I think the juror was referring to the jury instruction regarding self defense. According to that instruction, the jury was not allowed to consider what Zimmerman did prior to the first punch being thrown. (He was in a place where he was legally entitled to be so he had no duty to retreat, etc.)
I do think the stalking was relevant to the elements of the crimes charged however, and at a bare minimum, manslaughter was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, under Florida law the self defense claim trumps whatever crime was committed.
posted by Gringos Without Borders at 2:24 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
the juror was referring to the jury instruction regarding self defense
This. I opined over on DU a few days before the closing that this case was going to end up being all about fine shadings and jury instructions, and while Florida's SYG wasn't directly invoked it had a huge impact on the jury instructions even in this case as my mediamatters link above showed.
posted by localroger at 5:26 AM on July 17, 2013
This. I opined over on DU a few days before the closing that this case was going to end up being all about fine shadings and jury instructions, and while Florida's SYG wasn't directly invoked it had a huge impact on the jury instructions even in this case as my mediamatters link above showed.
posted by localroger at 5:26 AM on July 17, 2013
Man, do I ever feel vindicated for the comment I made right after they released the info on the jurors back in June.
I can't have been the only one who noticed B37's weirdness (mainly over the "rioting" lie) or the two other white women overly concerned about Trayvon being out at the godawfully late hour of 7pm or that "innocent people" were behind bars back then. I'd put good money on those being the original 3 that never even considered a guilty verdict on either charge, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:36 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
I can't have been the only one who noticed B37's weirdness (mainly over the "rioting" lie) or the two other white women overly concerned about Trayvon being out at the godawfully late hour of 7pm or that "innocent people" were behind bars back then. I'd put good money on those being the original 3 that never even considered a guilty verdict on either charge, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:36 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
DOJ solicits email tips in Zimmerman civil rights probe
It's also interesting that as recently as 1993, the national ACLU opposed on double jeopardy grounds the federal civil rights prosecution of the police officers who beat Rodney King. The national ACLU now seems to have effectively abandoned this position.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:04 AM on July 17, 2013
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.So the Dept of Justice is basically crowdsourcing its civil rights investigation into George Zimmerman. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? Crowdsourcing was certainly used to help track down the Boston bombers, but that was directed at investigating a crime (and addressing an active threat to public safety), not building a case against a named individual.
The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.
Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.
“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information,” that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. “They said they would very aggressively investigate this case.”
It's also interesting that as recently as 1993, the national ACLU opposed on double jeopardy grounds the federal civil rights prosecution of the police officers who beat Rodney King. The national ACLU now seems to have effectively abandoned this position.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:04 AM on July 17, 2013
Did Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law Increase Firearm Homicides?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2013
It's also interesting that as recently as 1993,
My clock could be wrong, but that was 20 years ago.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2013
My clock could be wrong, but that was 20 years ago.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:20 AM on July 17, 2013
At the moment, I'm torn on the civil suit question. Technically it isn't double jeopardy, therefore it's not a problem, especially since George Zimmerman acquittal was so narrowly focused. So yeah, let's legally nail his ass to the wall.
But a trial was had, a verdict given and continuing to go after anyone seems a bit unfair in spirit if not the letter of the law.
Working on changing the stand your ground law might be more productive. Or getting the prosecution team fired for the way they handled the case.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:23 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
But a trial was had, a verdict given and continuing to go after anyone seems a bit unfair in spirit if not the letter of the law.
Working on changing the stand your ground law might be more productive. Or getting the prosecution team fired for the way they handled the case.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:23 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
For some of us that's "recent" in the context of social trends.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:23 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:23 AM on July 17, 2013
This was an open-and-shut case of voluntary manslaughter and it was foolish of the state to prosecute it as anything but.
But a trial was had, a verdict given and continuing to go after anyone seems a bit unfair in spirit if not the letter of the law.
What? No. This is the whole point. In a civil case you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case there is no such requirement. This was patently a wrongful death and Zimmerman should pay for his mistake, one way or the other.
Working on changing the stand your ground law might be more productive.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, no. People will be going for holiday cruises on the moon before this happens.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:34 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
But a trial was had, a verdict given and continuing to go after anyone seems a bit unfair in spirit if not the letter of the law.
What? No. This is the whole point. In a civil case you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case there is no such requirement. This was patently a wrongful death and Zimmerman should pay for his mistake, one way or the other.
Working on changing the stand your ground law might be more productive.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, no. People will be going for holiday cruises on the moon before this happens.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:34 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
But a trial was had, a verdict given and continuing to go after anyone seems a bit unfair in spirit if not the letter of the law.
Why? Zimmerman still intentionally shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The Martin family will suffer every day for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn't Zimmerman be forced to right some of his wrongs?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:38 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why? Zimmerman still intentionally shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The Martin family will suffer every day for the rest of their lives. Why shouldn't Zimmerman be forced to right some of his wrongs?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:38 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
What? No. This is the whole point. In a civil case you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case there is no such requirement. This was patently a wrongful death and Zimmerman should pay for his mistake, one way or the other.
There's a difference between a civil suit for wrongful death and a second criminal prosecution for civil rights violations. The DOJ is considering prosecuting him in criminal court for violation of a federal civil rights law, so their burden of proof would be the same. Technically, it's not a violation of double jeopardy because he would be being prosecuted by a different sovereign (the federal government instead of the state), but I agree that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to go after someone twice because you lost the first time. It's easy to see the value of it in cases like this, but it also seems pretty ripe for abuse.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:45 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
There's a difference between a civil suit for wrongful death and a second criminal prosecution for civil rights violations. The DOJ is considering prosecuting him in criminal court for violation of a federal civil rights law, so their burden of proof would be the same. Technically, it's not a violation of double jeopardy because he would be being prosecuted by a different sovereign (the federal government instead of the state), but I agree that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to go after someone twice because you lost the first time. It's easy to see the value of it in cases like this, but it also seems pretty ripe for abuse.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:45 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why shouldn't Zimmerman be forced to right some of his wrongs?
So are we to keep trying him until the "correct" verdict is reached?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:52 AM on July 17, 2013
So are we to keep trying him until the "correct" verdict is reached?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:52 AM on July 17, 2013
Uh, its called a civil suit, and the burden of proof is lower. And yes, I hope the Martin family files one for the wrongful death of their son.
Moreover, a civil suit should be filed because this trial and the outcome was a gross injustice.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:10 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Moreover, a civil suit should be filed because this trial and the outcome was a gross injustice.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:10 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
But even if Zimmerman is held accountable/fined in a civil suit, would he be forced by the state of Florida to pay? Bernhard Goetz famously never paid a cent.
posted by mochapickle at 7:12 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by mochapickle at 7:12 AM on July 17, 2013
Uh, its called a civil suit, and the burden of proof is lower. And yes, I hope the Martin family files one for the wrongful death of their son.
9 comments up. This quoted section (emphasis added):
But when we're talking about a subsequent federal criminal trial of George Zimmerman, it's important to keep in mind that he has civil rights too.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:18 AM on July 17, 2013
9 comments up. This quoted section (emphasis added):
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.I don't think there's any reasonable objection to the Martin family bringing a wrongful death case against Zimmerman. They should have at him and I hope they get him for all he's got.
But when we're talking about a subsequent federal criminal trial of George Zimmerman, it's important to keep in mind that he has civil rights too.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:18 AM on July 17, 2013
So the Dept of Justice is basically crowdsourcing its civil rights investigation into George Zimmerman. Is there precedent for this sort of thing?
See Something, Say Something among others..
posted by snaparapans at 7:23 AM on July 17, 2013
See Something, Say Something among others..
posted by snaparapans at 7:23 AM on July 17, 2013
Yeah, I don't think they should nor would the feds would bring a case against Zimmerman.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
See Something, Say Something among others
As well as their Voting Rights subdivision.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:24 AM on July 17, 2013
As well as their Voting Rights subdivision.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:24 AM on July 17, 2013
See Something, Say Something among others..
That's pretty different from, "People of America, give us something incriminating about [First Name] [Last Name]."
posted by BobbyVan at 7:26 AM on July 17, 2013
That's pretty different from, "People of America, give us something incriminating about [First Name] [Last Name]."
posted by BobbyVan at 7:26 AM on July 17, 2013
But when we're talking about a subsequent federal criminal trial of George Zimmerman, it's important to keep in mind that he has civil rights too.
Sure, most Americans who are alive do have civil rights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:28 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
Sure, most Americans who are alive do have civil rights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:28 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
The problem with a federal case is that the burden on the Government is really high in terms of the racism that they would have to prove. I’m not sure it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt especially since the State of Florida couldn’t prove the lesser mens rea level required for murder 2.
More importantly, can you imagine how smug these fucks would be if Zimmerman was acquitted for a second time?
posted by Gringos Without Borders at 7:40 AM on July 17, 2013
More importantly, can you imagine how smug these fucks would be if Zimmerman was acquitted for a second time?
posted by Gringos Without Borders at 7:40 AM on July 17, 2013
That's pretty different from, "People of America, give us something incriminating about [First Name] [Last Name]."
Well, maybe technically, but same sentiment, imo, just personalized. The takeaway is that the government is your friend, talk to us.
posted by snaparapans at 7:48 AM on July 17, 2013
Well, maybe technically, but same sentiment, imo, just personalized. The takeaway is that the government is your friend, talk to us.
posted by snaparapans at 7:48 AM on July 17, 2013
I'm of half a mind that it's just Holder straight-up trolling the same racist wingnuts who got all hot and bothered when the DOJ sent a heavily-armed army of New Black Panthers that he personally deputized to ravage white residents of Sanford via the widespread rioting and looting we all saw in the aftermath of the shooting.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, maybe technically, but same sentiment, imo, just personalized. The takeaway is that the government is your friend, talk to us.
No. It's an appeal to the mob that makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence in the name of "racial healing." The DOJ is saying, "we want to send this particular person to prison but we don't have the evidence. Help us." It's shameful.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
No. It's an appeal to the mob that makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence in the name of "racial healing." The DOJ is saying, "we want to send this particular person to prison but we don't have the evidence. Help us." It's shameful.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:57 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
What are you on about? The presumption of innocence is something for the courts and jury to presume, not the prosecutor.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:00 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:00 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
ProTip: The Department of Justice is not a court of law that has to assume innocence when they're doing investigations. The hate crime inquiry began a long time ago, but was suspended while Zimmerman was on trial for charges in the lower jurisdiction. Now that this trial is finished, he can be tried at the federal level if his crime meets the standards of the Shepard/Byrd hate crimes bill, which Holder has already said is unlikely.
I personally think restarting the inquiry is counterproductive as I mentioned upthread, but from a "should Attorneys General be able to set priorities for investigations" standpoint, there's nothing wrong here.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:03 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I personally think restarting the inquiry is counterproductive as I mentioned upthread, but from a "should Attorneys General be able to set priorities for investigations" standpoint, there's nothing wrong here.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:03 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, FWIW right now the only source we have of "crowdsourcing" is a single article giving a second-hand report about a meeting that mentions a e-mail address that anyone can send a message to (which is the nature of all e-mail addresses). The fact that it is at the moment being trumpeted out almost exclusively by Freepers, Stormfront, and the rest of the crowd who throw a tantrum every time they remember that the entire NBPP hasn't been executed for treason gives me serious pause as to what the reality is.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
The duty of prosecutors is to see that justice is done, not that particular people that we all think are bad actually go to jail. I've never heard of a prosecutor naming an individual and calling on a community to send in their dirty laundry on that person.
It's fine for them to conduct an aggressive investigation, but enlisting the people to participate in a fishing expedition against a single person pretty much taints the entire jury pool, IMO.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013
It's fine for them to conduct an aggressive investigation, but enlisting the people to participate in a fishing expedition against a single person pretty much taints the entire jury pool, IMO.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013
The DOJ is saying, "we want to send this particular person to prison but we don't have the evidence. Help us." It's shameful.
Unlikely, imo... Most everyone is using this case to pimp their personal agenda, so why shouldn't the DOJ get in on the action. IOW, the likelihood that the DOJ will have a case, no less prevail in a civil rights case against Zimmerman is very low, while the good will they will gain from this targeted PR TIPS campaign "the government is on your side" is tremendous.
posted by snaparapans at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Unlikely, imo... Most everyone is using this case to pimp their personal agenda, so why shouldn't the DOJ get in on the action. IOW, the likelihood that the DOJ will have a case, no less prevail in a civil rights case against Zimmerman is very low, while the good will they will gain from this targeted PR TIPS campaign "the government is on your side" is tremendous.
posted by snaparapans at 8:11 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
The fact that it is at the moment being trumpeted out almost exclusively by Freepers, Stormfront,
Don't forget some Mefites!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:14 AM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Don't forget some Mefites!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:14 AM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Also, FWIW right now the only source we have of "crowdsourcing" is a single article giving a second-hand report
I hope you're right and the quoted individual was exaggerating or misunderstood. Given that this ended up in a reputable paper like the Orlando Sentinel, the Justice Department should clarify what they're actually doing.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:15 AM on July 17, 2013
I hope you're right and the quoted individual was exaggerating or misunderstood. Given that this ended up in a reputable paper like the Orlando Sentinel, the Justice Department should clarify what they're actually doing.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:15 AM on July 17, 2013
a reputable paper like the Orlando Sentinel
The jokey name for it around town is The Slantinel.
posted by cashman at 8:17 AM on July 17, 2013
The jokey name for it around town is The Slantinel.
posted by cashman at 8:17 AM on July 17, 2013
very jokey
posted by clavdivs at 8:24 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 8:24 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
"The duty of prosecutors is to see that justice is done, not that particular people that we all think are bad actually go to jail."
That former may be the theory, but the latter is the actual practice.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:30 AM on July 17, 2013
That former may be the theory, but the latter is the actual practice.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:30 AM on July 17, 2013
True. But tending to the perception of the former can actually help restrain the excesses of the latter.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:34 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by BobbyVan at 8:34 AM on July 17, 2013
Really late to the comment part of this page cause its taken days to read it all. I think this entire trial was a travesty. I think the prosecutor threw the case on purpose. I think there was never any intention to hold anyone legally culpable for Trayvon's murder. I think it was murder. Having grown up in Florida, I'm sad that 30 years after I left, it's still just as racially divided as I remembered it being. I was a kid when FL was finally forced to integrate schools where I lived. I remember the faces of the adults who threw bottles and screamed racial epitaphs at the children on the busses. Their faces red and angry, their lips flecked with spittle, the hatred so violent in their eyes.
The only thing that I can see that's changed is that the racists have gotten better at wiping their mouths when they celebrate the death of this boy. I am heartbroken for his family and for a country that really hasn't come as far as I would like from lynching trees and slavery.
posted by dejah420 at 9:06 AM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
The only thing that I can see that's changed is that the racists have gotten better at wiping their mouths when they celebrate the death of this boy. I am heartbroken for his family and for a country that really hasn't come as far as I would like from lynching trees and slavery.
posted by dejah420 at 9:06 AM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
"For some of us that's "recent" in the context of social trends."
Recent reference zinger: Did Logan help you escape the Carousel?
posted by klangklangston at 9:10 AM on July 17, 2013
Recent reference zinger: Did Logan help you escape the Carousel?
posted by klangklangston at 9:10 AM on July 17, 2013
I think the prosecutor threw the case on purpose.
Then you might not like the fact that she's also going to be on the self-defense/SYG case they call "the next Trayvon Martin". I know I'm not.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:12 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Then you might not like the fact that she's also going to be on the self-defense/SYG case they call "the next Trayvon Martin". I know I'm not.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:12 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Then you might not like the fact that she's also going to be on the self-defense/SYG case they call "the next Trayvon Martin". I know I'm not.
There are obvious parallels in these two events, but the case against Dunn is indisputably much stronger--multiple eyewitnesses from the car, the fact that Dunn didn't even report the shooting, Dunn wasn't injured, Dunn allegely fired multiple shots almost randomly, etc.. You can tell the state is more confident by the fact that rather than bypass the grand jury, as with Zimmerman, the state not only presented the case to the grand jury, but the grand jury upgraded the charge from second-degree to first-degree murder. It's tough for anyone to predict cases before a trial, and certainly prosecutors have been known to exaggerate the strength of their cases, but I was pretty skeptical going into deliberations that Zimmerman would be convicted, and I'm reasonably confident Dunn will be--though proving premeditation to get this case above second-degree murder will likely be difficult.
posted by dsfan at 9:36 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
There are obvious parallels in these two events, but the case against Dunn is indisputably much stronger--multiple eyewitnesses from the car, the fact that Dunn didn't even report the shooting, Dunn wasn't injured, Dunn allegely fired multiple shots almost randomly, etc.. You can tell the state is more confident by the fact that rather than bypass the grand jury, as with Zimmerman, the state not only presented the case to the grand jury, but the grand jury upgraded the charge from second-degree to first-degree murder. It's tough for anyone to predict cases before a trial, and certainly prosecutors have been known to exaggerate the strength of their cases, but I was pretty skeptical going into deliberations that Zimmerman would be convicted, and I'm reasonably confident Dunn will be--though proving premeditation to get this case above second-degree murder will likely be difficult.
posted by dsfan at 9:36 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Juror B37, statement to Anderson Cooper this morning:
posted by maggieb at 9:42 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Thank you for the opportunity to vent some of the anguish which has been in me since the trial began. For reasons of my own, I needed to speak alone.Saith she who proudly lines bird cages with newspapers unread.
There will be no other interviews. My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than "not guilty" in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured.
As for the alleged "book deal," there is not one at this time. There was an agreement with a literary agent to explore the concept of a book which discussed the impact of sequestration on my perceptions of this serious case, while being compared to the perceptions of an attorney who was closely following the trial from outside the "bubble". The relationship with the agent ceased the moment I realized what had been occurring in the world during the weeks of my sequestration.
My prayers are with Trayvon's parents for their loss, as they have always been. I now wish for me and my family to recover from being selected for this jury and return to a normal life. God bless.
posted by maggieb at 9:42 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Dunn also went back to his car to get his gun out of the glove compartment. Retreating and then coming back armed puts the lie to any self-defense claim.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:46 AM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:46 AM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think the strongest and only argument necessary to refute the "threw the case on purpose" theory is that Angela Corey was in charge. Angela Corey does not throw cases because that would not bring glory to Angela Corey. She would prosecute as adults and throw into prison the baby panda twins recently born at the Atlanta Zoo if she thought there was a chance at conviction.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:46 AM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
Zombie, in reading the comments (I know, I know) on the article you linked, I noticed a number of people (who appear to be black, or are using black people as their FB pic) using the phrase "slave patrol", a phrase I haven't heard since studying the civil war.
It struck me that the people who are using that phrase, have a point. The actions of the people who are killing black people for being in the wrong place, playing the wrong music, generally being uppity, and then the killers are getting away with it, can absolutely be seen as a continuation of the antebellum slave patrols. This realization is devastating.
Holy fuck, people. What have we become?
posted by dejah420 at 9:47 AM on July 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
It struck me that the people who are using that phrase, have a point. The actions of the people who are killing black people for being in the wrong place, playing the wrong music, generally being uppity, and then the killers are getting away with it, can absolutely be seen as a continuation of the antebellum slave patrols. This realization is devastating.
Holy fuck, people. What have we become?
posted by dejah420 at 9:47 AM on July 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
I think the strongest and only argument necessary to refute the "threw the case on purpose" theory is that Angela Corey was in charge. Angela Corey does not throw cases because that would not bring glory to Angela Corey. She would prosecute as adults and throw into prison the baby panda twins recently born at the Atlanta Zoo if she thought there was a chance at conviction.
Right, and I think your thoughts on Angela Corey (whom I hadn't even heard of prior to this trial result as I'd been trying not to follow it) are spot on but - her behavior at that press conference was SO. WEIRD.
posted by sweetkid at 9:52 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right, and I think your thoughts on Angela Corey (whom I hadn't even heard of prior to this trial result as I'd been trying not to follow it) are spot on but - her behavior at that press conference was SO. WEIRD.
posted by sweetkid at 9:52 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Justinian, that's why she let her minions handle Zimmerman. She plans to be front and center on the Dunn prosecution. Slam dunk (hopefully!)
one more dead town's last parade, I think I read that Dunn was in the car the whole time, except for opening the door and stepping out to continue firing as the boys tried to drive away.
posted by maggieb at 9:52 AM on July 17, 2013
one more dead town's last parade, I think I read that Dunn was in the car the whole time, except for opening the door and stepping out to continue firing as the boys tried to drive away.
posted by maggieb at 9:52 AM on July 17, 2013
Brutal account of the murder of Jordan Davis. /derail
posted by maggieb at 9:58 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by maggieb at 9:58 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Angela Corey does not throw cases because that would not bring glory to Angela Corey.
Wouldn't throwing this case bring glory to Angel Corey in the eyes of many Floridians? Possibly even those who could affect her career advancement in some way?
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:12 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't throwing this case bring glory to Angel Corey in the eyes of many Floridians? Possibly even those who could affect her career advancement in some way?
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:12 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
It just seems like a case for Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
posted by Justinian at 10:17 AM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 10:17 AM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
Blowing a case overtly enough to attract the approbation a significant comically-racist chunk of the voting public on that basis while also doing it subtly enough to not commit career suicide in the process would be a really tricky needle to thread even if the numbers were there to back it up. Sometimes people just don't do a very good job at their jobs.
posted by cortex at 10:23 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by cortex at 10:23 AM on July 17, 2013
The Banality of Richard Cohen and Racist Profiling, Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, 17 July 2013
What you must understand is that when the individual lives of those freighted by racism are deemed less than those who are not, all other inhumanities follow. That is the logic of Richard Cohen. It is the logic of Barack Obama's potential head of the DHS. This logic is not new, original or especially egregious. It is the logic of the country's largest city. It is the logic of the American state. It is the logic scribbled across the lion's share of our history. And it is the logic that killed Trayvon Martin.posted by ob1quixote at 10:42 AM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
I think I read that Dunn was in the car the whole time, except for opening the door and stepping out to continue firing as the boys tried to drive away.
Could be. For some reason I thought they were at the gas pumps, not in front of the convenience store, but it appears that they were both parked right in front of the store.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:46 AM on July 17, 2013
Could be. For some reason I thought they were at the gas pumps, not in front of the convenience store, but it appears that they were both parked right in front of the store.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:46 AM on July 17, 2013
It just seems like a case for Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I understand the point behind Hanlon's Razor, but my experience with other human beings shows that malice (often in the form of spite) is far more pervasive than that axiom would have us believe. Stupid is common. Asshole is even moreso.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:47 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
I understand the point behind Hanlon's Razor, but my experience with other human beings shows that malice (often in the form of spite) is far more pervasive than that axiom would have us believe. Stupid is common. Asshole is even moreso.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:47 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
I understand the point behind Hanlon's Razor, but my experience with other human beings shows that malice (often in the form of spite) is far more pervasive than that axiom would have us believe. Stupid is common. Asshole is even moreso.
Stupid people tend to be malicious as well in my experience. They have nothing else to occupy their minds.
posted by winna at 10:49 AM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Stupid people tend to be malicious as well in my experience. They have nothing else to occupy their minds.
posted by winna at 10:49 AM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
"Malice" is often a matter of individual perspective. Few people who act with malicious intent think they are doing so.
Just something to keep in mind.
posted by grubi at 10:50 AM on July 17, 2013
Just something to keep in mind.
posted by grubi at 10:50 AM on July 17, 2013
The thing about Hanlon's Razor is that stupidity does not preclude malice (or vice-versa). Case in point: the "legitimate rape" argument.
Or, on preview, what winna said.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:51 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Or, on preview, what winna said.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:51 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
and I'm reasonably confident Dunn will be--though proving premeditation to get this case above second-degree murder will likely be difficult.
I am reasonably confident also that Dunn won't get off. But that is a good point about premeditation, and they are going for murder 1, aren't they?
Although in the Arias trial, the state made a big point about how premeditation does not have to happen over a long period of time and can actually be quite brief. I don't know how that shakes out in Florida and would be interested to hear mefite attorney opinions on the question in general.
Does the Dunn trial have lesser offenses included, or has it not reached that point yet? (I know, I could google, but I'm still not finished reading about the Zimmerman trial...)
posted by torticat at 10:51 AM on July 17, 2013
I am reasonably confident also that Dunn won't get off. But that is a good point about premeditation, and they are going for murder 1, aren't they?
Although in the Arias trial, the state made a big point about how premeditation does not have to happen over a long period of time and can actually be quite brief. I don't know how that shakes out in Florida and would be interested to hear mefite attorney opinions on the question in general.
Does the Dunn trial have lesser offenses included, or has it not reached that point yet? (I know, I could google, but I'm still not finished reading about the Zimmerman trial...)
posted by torticat at 10:51 AM on July 17, 2013
Okay, but Corey didn't need to get involved in the case in the first place. Zimmerman wasn't going to be charged by the locals so if they didn't want Zimmerman convicted all they had to do was nothing. Instead Corey marched in, took over, and brought Zimmerman up on charges of murder by completely bypassing the grand jury process. Which was another step where the process could have been derailed if they'd been so inclined.
Believing that not only did they not want Zimmerman convicted but they wanted to be seen as overzealous but incompetent prosecutors in the pursuit of that conviction doesn't pass the plausibility test. You're looking for ways to explain what happened which is understandable but the most reasonable, likely explanation is that the defense lawyers were better than that prosecution lawyers. Which is not only possible but likely; that's why they get paid the big bucks.
Corey didn't have to get involved. She didn't have to bypass the grand jury. Both of which would have had the effect of pleasing racist scumbugs without the major detriment of making Corey look like an idiot. Which is the worst thing that could possibly have happened in the eyes of Angela Corey.
posted by Justinian at 10:56 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Believing that not only did they not want Zimmerman convicted but they wanted to be seen as overzealous but incompetent prosecutors in the pursuit of that conviction doesn't pass the plausibility test. You're looking for ways to explain what happened which is understandable but the most reasonable, likely explanation is that the defense lawyers were better than that prosecution lawyers. Which is not only possible but likely; that's why they get paid the big bucks.
Corey didn't have to get involved. She didn't have to bypass the grand jury. Both of which would have had the effect of pleasing racist scumbugs without the major detriment of making Corey look like an idiot. Which is the worst thing that could possibly have happened in the eyes of Angela Corey.
posted by Justinian at 10:56 AM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Blowing a case overtly enough to attract the approbation a significant comically-racist chunk of the voting public on that basis while also doing it subtly enough to not commit career suicide in the process would be a really tricky needle to thread even if the numbers were there to back it up.
She wasn't even going to try the case until the Fed's came down on them. Maybe her smirk is also a bit of an "I told you so" to Holder. Anyway, she may not even be fully conscious of her true motivations, and I could see how she would be aware that the system wants her to put "assholes who always get away" in jail, not neighborhood watchmen or batmen or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:59 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
She wasn't even going to try the case until the Fed's came down on them. Maybe her smirk is also a bit of an "I told you so" to Holder. Anyway, she may not even be fully conscious of her true motivations, and I could see how she would be aware that the system wants her to put "assholes who always get away" in jail, not neighborhood watchmen or batmen or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:59 AM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Instead Corey marched in, took over, and brought Zimmerman up on charges of murder by completely bypassing the grand jury process.
I thought Rick Scott appointed her?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on July 17, 2013
I thought Rick Scott appointed her?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:06 AM on July 17, 2013
Gov. Scott appointed Corey special prosecutor in the Zimmerman case.
posted by maggieb at 11:08 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by maggieb at 11:08 AM on July 17, 2013
Does the Dunn trial have lesser offenses included, or has it not reached that point yet? (I know, I could google, but I'm still not finished reading about the Zimmerman trial...)
As I understand it, second-degree (depraved mind) murder and manslaughter are by law necessarily given as lesser-included offenses to first-degree (premeditated) murder in Florida, see here (google cached version of RTF file) from the Florida Supreme Court.
posted by dsfan at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2013
As I understand it, second-degree (depraved mind) murder and manslaughter are by law necessarily given as lesser-included offenses to first-degree (premeditated) murder in Florida, see here (google cached version of RTF file) from the Florida Supreme Court.
posted by dsfan at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2013
Yes, but I don't see how that means she didn't march in and take over?
posted by Justinian at 11:19 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by Justinian at 11:19 AM on July 17, 2013
So how did she get there? Corey, 58, was chosen by Florida Gov. Rick Scott in March 2012 as special prosecutor to investigate whether charges should be brought against Zimmerman.
posted by snaparapans at 11:21 AM on July 17, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 11:21 AM on July 17, 2013
Few people who act with malicious intent think they are doing so.
The word malice by definition means intent or desire to cause harm.
So no it is not open to individual perspective at all.
posted by adamvasco at 11:23 AM on July 17, 2013
The word malice by definition means intent or desire to cause harm.
So no it is not open to individual perspective at all.
posted by adamvasco at 11:23 AM on July 17, 2013
The word malice by definition means intent or desire to cause harm.
So no it is not open to individual perspective at all.
Deraily, but sometimes one does not realize how malicious one's own motives are. People lie to themselves about their own racism, sexism, and homophobia all the time. I doubt if you had polled Zimmerman during the event if he would have gone "oh, yeah, my actions might be motivated by racism," although his comments to the dispatcher are hard to read another way. So "unconscious malice" is not a totally out there idea.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:39 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
So no it is not open to individual perspective at all.
Deraily, but sometimes one does not realize how malicious one's own motives are. People lie to themselves about their own racism, sexism, and homophobia all the time. I doubt if you had polled Zimmerman during the event if he would have gone "oh, yeah, my actions might be motivated by racism," although his comments to the dispatcher are hard to read another way. So "unconscious malice" is not a totally out there idea.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:39 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Reuters: Exclusive: Fired employee to file lawsuit against Zimmerman prosecutors
posted by BobbyVan at 12:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by BobbyVan at 12:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Suing over all the stuff that had literally zero bearing on the case? Ok...
posted by zombieflanders at 12:13 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by zombieflanders at 12:13 PM on July 17, 2013
Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities.
The more information that comes out, the more it seems like Corey and a bunch of people in the legal system in Florida have longstanding beef and it's just playing itself out in various trials. It's like some kind of legal gang war, the more information that comes out. It kind of reminds me of the Academic gang wars I've seen over the years.
posted by cashman at 12:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
The more information that comes out, the more it seems like Corey and a bunch of people in the legal system in Florida have longstanding beef and it's just playing itself out in various trials. It's like some kind of legal gang war, the more information that comes out. It kind of reminds me of the Academic gang wars I've seen over the years.
posted by cashman at 12:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Dunn also went back to his car to get his gun out of the glove compartment. Retreating and then coming back armed puts the lie to any self-defense claim.
This also happened in that super popular to harp on "woman gets 20 years for warning shots!" Case that's popped up in this thread several times and ALL over facebook, but everyone convienently seems to skip that part in their outrage bait soundbytes.
I don't think this guys going to walk. But the only message they're sending there is "have a plausible story and no real witnesses if you wanna murder black kids, ok old white dudes?"
Pretty much just "make it look good, at least kinda sorta".
It's like a cool dad telling their kid they can do that thing that's against the rules their mom would get them in trouble for, as long as they maintain plausible deniability. Fucking gross.
posted by emptythought at 1:05 PM on July 17, 2013
This also happened in that super popular to harp on "woman gets 20 years for warning shots!" Case that's popped up in this thread several times and ALL over facebook, but everyone convienently seems to skip that part in their outrage bait soundbytes.
I don't think this guys going to walk. But the only message they're sending there is "have a plausible story and no real witnesses if you wanna murder black kids, ok old white dudes?"
Pretty much just "make it look good, at least kinda sorta".
It's like a cool dad telling their kid they can do that thing that's against the rules their mom would get them in trouble for, as long as they maintain plausible deniability. Fucking gross.
posted by emptythought at 1:05 PM on July 17, 2013
I think one of the many interesting (though admittedly, frustrating) things in this case is how many people are willing to set aside or ignore important principles they hold dear in other cases, so that they can have an appropriate object for vengeance.
So, for example: many people who would normally hold a very high bar for what the police can and can't tell you to do - and bring up relevant constitutional amendments and legal precedent to defend that - find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law. Interestingly, even people who think that those immediate instincts to be compliant towards police and authority figures are normally a problem.
Similarly, people who under normal circumstances would be horrified to buy into the culture of mascuinity, find themselves saying that anyone who can't hold their own in a fistfight without need for some other form of defense is a "coward." People who ordinarily would never mock obesity find themselves making catty comments about Zimmerman's weight and level of exercise. And people who fight for people to be able to self-identify as their chosen ethnicity find themselves making snarky comments about whether or not Zimmerman is really Hispanic, or if he counts as white regardless of his own claims (or the godawful "white Hispanic", and yes, just because the Census uses a term does not mean it's not racist.)
People who would normally be horrified by someone initiating violence in response to "feeling threatened", find themselves in the position of defending Martin should he have happened to have done so.
And that's really an interesting thing. I don't think it says something negative, why people have chosen to line up in that way, but it does raise some questions about how deep some of our feelings about these things go - or if universally, one anger arises, these considerations are thrown out the window, naturally only skin-deep.
posted by corb at 2:05 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
So, for example: many people who would normally hold a very high bar for what the police can and can't tell you to do - and bring up relevant constitutional amendments and legal precedent to defend that - find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law. Interestingly, even people who think that those immediate instincts to be compliant towards police and authority figures are normally a problem.
Similarly, people who under normal circumstances would be horrified to buy into the culture of mascuinity, find themselves saying that anyone who can't hold their own in a fistfight without need for some other form of defense is a "coward." People who ordinarily would never mock obesity find themselves making catty comments about Zimmerman's weight and level of exercise. And people who fight for people to be able to self-identify as their chosen ethnicity find themselves making snarky comments about whether or not Zimmerman is really Hispanic, or if he counts as white regardless of his own claims (or the godawful "white Hispanic", and yes, just because the Census uses a term does not mean it's not racist.)
People who would normally be horrified by someone initiating violence in response to "feeling threatened", find themselves in the position of defending Martin should he have happened to have done so.
And that's really an interesting thing. I don't think it says something negative, why people have chosen to line up in that way, but it does raise some questions about how deep some of our feelings about these things go - or if universally, one anger arises, these considerations are thrown out the window, naturally only skin-deep.
posted by corb at 2:05 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Juror's comment on Anderson Cooper: the laws that left me with no verdict option other than "not guilty" in order to remain within the instructions
Again, *THIS* is how you have a Show Trial these days, *designed* to result in acquittal. Due to the fact that they moved the Amadou Diallo trial to Albany, I had no chose but to pay extra attention to it, and my observation then was exactly this. You have jurors complaining that the instructions were DESIGNED FOR AQUITTAL, and there was literally no other decision possible to be rendered. This cannot be accidental.
posted by mikelieman at 2:16 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Again, *THIS* is how you have a Show Trial these days, *designed* to result in acquittal. Due to the fact that they moved the Amadou Diallo trial to Albany, I had no chose but to pay extra attention to it, and my observation then was exactly this. You have jurors complaining that the instructions were DESIGNED FOR AQUITTAL, and there was literally no other decision possible to be rendered. This cannot be accidental.
posted by mikelieman at 2:16 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
So, for example: many people who would normally hold a very high bar for what the police can and can't tell you to do - and bring up relevant constitutional amendments and legal precedent to defend that - find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law. Interestingly, even people who think that those immediate instincts to be compliant towards police and authority figures are normally a problem.
Please tell me you're not actually trying to conflate being confronted by the police with requesting assistance from the police, especially as it relates to the history of racial interactions between the black community and the police (particularly in the South). Because that would be fucked up on oh-so-many levels.
Similarly, people who under normal circumstances would be horrified to buy into the culture of mascuinity, find themselves saying that anyone who can't hold their own in a fistfight without need for some other form of defense is a "coward."
Are you talking about the "wuss" comment from the last thread that was generally frowned upon by other commentors?
People who ordinarily would never mock obesity find themselves making catty comments about Zimmerman's weight and level of exercise.
Well, no, Zimmerman's defense team went out of their way to point that out, not Metafilter commentors. The only comments I see talking about weight are referring to that.
And people who fight for people to be able to self-identify as their chosen ethnicity find themselves making snarky comments about whether or not Zimmerman is really Hispanic, or if he counts as white regardless of his own claims (or the godawful "white Hispanic", and yes, just because the Census uses a term does not mean it's not racist.)
You know, elizardbits and others already called you out on this, so if they've got anything else to add, I'm sure they'll do so.
People who would normally be horrified by someone initiating violence in response to "feeling threatened", find themselves in the position of defending Martin should he have happened to have done so.
Yeah, not seeing this either.
And that's really an interesting thing. I don't think it says something negative, why people have chosen to line up in that way, but it does raise some questions about how deep some of our feelings about these things go - or if universally, one anger arises, these considerations are thrown out the window, naturally only skin-deep.
I can't tell if this is a lack of self-awareness or just tut-tutting for the hell of it.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:18 PM on July 17, 2013 [13 favorites]
Please tell me you're not actually trying to conflate being confronted by the police with requesting assistance from the police, especially as it relates to the history of racial interactions between the black community and the police (particularly in the South). Because that would be fucked up on oh-so-many levels.
Similarly, people who under normal circumstances would be horrified to buy into the culture of mascuinity, find themselves saying that anyone who can't hold their own in a fistfight without need for some other form of defense is a "coward."
Are you talking about the "wuss" comment from the last thread that was generally frowned upon by other commentors?
People who ordinarily would never mock obesity find themselves making catty comments about Zimmerman's weight and level of exercise.
Well, no, Zimmerman's defense team went out of their way to point that out, not Metafilter commentors. The only comments I see talking about weight are referring to that.
And people who fight for people to be able to self-identify as their chosen ethnicity find themselves making snarky comments about whether or not Zimmerman is really Hispanic, or if he counts as white regardless of his own claims (or the godawful "white Hispanic", and yes, just because the Census uses a term does not mean it's not racist.)
You know, elizardbits and others already called you out on this, so if they've got anything else to add, I'm sure they'll do so.
People who would normally be horrified by someone initiating violence in response to "feeling threatened", find themselves in the position of defending Martin should he have happened to have done so.
Yeah, not seeing this either.
And that's really an interesting thing. I don't think it says something negative, why people have chosen to line up in that way, but it does raise some questions about how deep some of our feelings about these things go - or if universally, one anger arises, these considerations are thrown out the window, naturally only skin-deep.
I can't tell if this is a lack of self-awareness or just tut-tutting for the hell of it.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:18 PM on July 17, 2013 [13 favorites]
People who would normally be horrified by someone initiating violence in response to "feeling threatened", find themselves in the position of defending Martin should he have happened to have done so.
Let's be clear. I do not believe that at all. I believe, and there's no evidence to contradict this, that George Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Trayvon Martin, and when Martin lawfully resisted and a struggle ensued, then Zimmerman drew his weapon and killed Martin.
The idea that Martin was just another "Crazy Negro" is insulting, and I'm surprised so many people just accept that as the foundation of Zimmerman's claims. Because once you discount the idea that Martin just couldn't keep from attacking Whitey, then there's no other scenario that makes any sense.
posted by mikelieman at 2:20 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Let's be clear. I do not believe that at all. I believe, and there's no evidence to contradict this, that George Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Trayvon Martin, and when Martin lawfully resisted and a struggle ensued, then Zimmerman drew his weapon and killed Martin.
The idea that Martin was just another "Crazy Negro" is insulting, and I'm surprised so many people just accept that as the foundation of Zimmerman's claims. Because once you discount the idea that Martin just couldn't keep from attacking Whitey, then there's no other scenario that makes any sense.
posted by mikelieman at 2:20 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law
I think its obvious context matters. You don't find people saying, "don't listen to the police EVER, even if the building is on fire and they are leading people to the exit."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:21 PM on July 17, 2013
I think its obvious context matters. You don't find people saying, "don't listen to the police EVER, even if the building is on fire and they are leading people to the exit."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:21 PM on July 17, 2013
And disobeying the 'suggestion' of the non-emergency dispatcher points to Zimmerman's inability to make REASONABLE decisions that evening, therefore without a REASONABLE fear of imminent death or gbh, his use of deadly force was unlawful..
posted by mikelieman at 2:22 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 2:22 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also a key point is the Zimmerman called 911, 911 didn't call Zimmerman.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:24 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:24 PM on July 17, 2013
I believe, and there's no evidence to contradict this, that George Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Trayvon Martin
What does this look like to you? Serious question. I find it hard to conceive of such a situation - I'm thinking that you mean Zimmerman reached out to physically and forcibly detain Martin? Or do you mean something else? Because I also find it hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force. I am interested in what that looks like to other people. Zimmerman was shorter than Martin, he had the police recently on the phone, it was his neighborhood, and he was armed. The idea that he would initiate fisticuffs of some sort has thus always seemed a bit ludicrous to me.
posted by corb at 2:28 PM on July 17, 2013
What does this look like to you? Serious question. I find it hard to conceive of such a situation - I'm thinking that you mean Zimmerman reached out to physically and forcibly detain Martin? Or do you mean something else? Because I also find it hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force. I am interested in what that looks like to other people. Zimmerman was shorter than Martin, he had the police recently on the phone, it was his neighborhood, and he was armed. The idea that he would initiate fisticuffs of some sort has thus always seemed a bit ludicrous to me.
posted by corb at 2:28 PM on July 17, 2013
Sadly, I've heard more than one person opine "If only Trayvon Martin called 911"... At that point, I just put them in the "can not comprehend" set, and move along...
posted by mikelieman at 2:29 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 2:29 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
- I'm thinking that you mean Zimmerman reached out to physically and forcibly detain Martin?
posted by mikelieman at 2:33 PM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
Zimmerman: Hey, you. Hold up.Show me some reasonable doubt to that scenario.
Martin: Who the fuck are you? ( doesn't obey )
Zimmerman: Stop there. ( approaches Martin, invades Martin's personal space becoming a direct threat to Martin's safety. )
Martin: Fuck you.
Zimmerman claims he reaches for his phone
Martin, thinking Zimmerman is potentially reaching for a weapon begins his lawful use of physical force in self-defense.
A struggle ensues.
Zimmerman draws weapon.
Martin tries to withdraw.
Zimmerman kills Martin.
posted by mikelieman at 2:33 PM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm not sure what you mean by show you some reasonable doubt? A theory of what happened isn't evidence about what happenered?
posted by Justinian at 2:36 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:36 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Zimmerman was shorter than Martin, he had the police recently on the phone, it was his neighborhood, and he was armed. The idea that he would initiate fisticuffs of some sort has thus always seemed a bit ludicrous to me.
He used to work as a bouncer. Escorting people out of a bar often involves grabbing them. Grabbing Martin looks a lot like something he did for a living to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
He used to work as a bouncer. Escorting people out of a bar often involves grabbing them. Grabbing Martin looks a lot like something he did for a living to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
Zimmerman was shorter than Martin, he had the police recently on the phone, it was his neighborhood, and he was armed. The idea that he would initiate fisticuffs of some sort has thus always seemed a bit ludicrous to me.
Being armed is all by itself a good reason for people of a not-uncommon mindset. After all, if Martin started something, he could always pull his piece. If it was bolstering the fact that he was shorter, there's another. If he believed that Martin was one of those assholes who always got away (SPOILER: he did), then the police on the phone--wait, I'm sorry, not even the police but a dispatcher--weren't coming quick enough, there's yet another reason. The fact that it was "his" neighborhood* that he felt he had to defend is hardly even necessary at that point.
* How convenient that it was Zimmerman's neighborhood, and not Martin's. IIRC Martin's dad and stepmom had been living there longer than Zimmerman had.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
Being armed is all by itself a good reason for people of a not-uncommon mindset. After all, if Martin started something, he could always pull his piece. If it was bolstering the fact that he was shorter, there's another. If he believed that Martin was one of those assholes who always got away (SPOILER: he did), then the police on the phone--wait, I'm sorry, not even the police but a dispatcher--weren't coming quick enough, there's yet another reason. The fact that it was "his" neighborhood* that he felt he had to defend is hardly even necessary at that point.
* How convenient that it was Zimmerman's neighborhood, and not Martin's. IIRC Martin's dad and stepmom had been living there longer than Zimmerman had.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
For what it's worth, mikelieman, as someone who thinks this verdict was probably right under the law, however much it sucks, that's more-or-less my view of what most likely happened, except maybe for the trying-to-withdraw part at the end.
posted by dsfan at 2:50 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by dsfan at 2:50 PM on July 17, 2013
I can't believe I managed to avoid the picture of Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground for as long as I did but I find it totally haunting.
posted by sweetkid at 3:04 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 3:04 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
"So, for example: many people who would normally hold a very high bar for what the police can and can't tell you to do - and bring up relevant constitutional amendments and legal precedent to defend that - find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law. Interestingly, even people who think that those immediate instincts to be compliant towards police and authority figures are normally a problem."
Aww, bullshit. This is a hacky rewrite of the same apologia we've seen before — where Zimmerman should have ignored good advice because of some bizarro vigilante impulse, conflated with knowing your rights and being confident in the exercise of them.
I would have no problem with Zimmerman ignoring a cop in an interview who told him to talk without an attorney present. I have a problem with Zimmerman going cowboy and killing a black kid.
Why don't you?
posted by klangklangston at 3:06 PM on July 17, 2013 [17 favorites]
Aww, bullshit. This is a hacky rewrite of the same apologia we've seen before — where Zimmerman should have ignored good advice because of some bizarro vigilante impulse, conflated with knowing your rights and being confident in the exercise of them.
I would have no problem with Zimmerman ignoring a cop in an interview who told him to talk without an attorney present. I have a problem with Zimmerman going cowboy and killing a black kid.
Why don't you?
posted by klangklangston at 3:06 PM on July 17, 2013 [17 favorites]
I can't believe I managed to avoid the picture of Trayvon Martin lying dead on the ground for as long as I did but I find it totally haunting.
Also wanted to add: it reminded me of when I saw a child victim of the Bhopal gas attacks in India on the cover of National Geographic.I was about five years old when I saw it and I was horrified by that picture for years.
posted by sweetkid at 3:06 PM on July 17, 2013
So, for example: many people who would normally hold a very high bar for what the police can and can't tell you to do - and bring up relevant constitutional amendments and legal precedent to defend that - find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law.
Hi. I'm one of those people.
If a cop stops me on the street and asks me to empty my pockets, I am going to do the absolute bare minimum to keep from being arrested. Maybe not even that.
When I see and hear someone kicking in a window of a nighebor's house and I call 911 and the dispatcher asks if I'm in a safe place and to please stay there, I'm going to do that.
Do you really not see the difference?
posted by rtha at 3:15 PM on July 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
Hi. I'm one of those people.
If a cop stops me on the street and asks me to empty my pockets, I am going to do the absolute bare minimum to keep from being arrested. Maybe not even that.
When I see and hear someone kicking in a window of a nighebor's house and I call 911 and the dispatcher asks if I'm in a safe place and to please stay there, I'm going to do that.
Do you really not see the difference?
posted by rtha at 3:15 PM on July 17, 2013 [12 favorites]
I think one of the many interesting (though admittedly, frustrating) things in this case is how many people are willing to set aside or ignore important principles they hold dear in other cases, so that they can have an appropriate object for vengeance.
Yeah, I'm not seeing any of the things listed at all. There might have been one or two people who, maybe if I dug into their history, said something vaguely hypocritical in this thread, but I have no urge to find out if that's the case.
For me one of the frustrating (and not remotely interesting) things is how so many people are not only bending over backwards to find justification for someone shooting an unarmed kid to death, but are also trying to call gotcha on the people who see the fuckedupness of such a thing. Like we're the ones not getting something completely fucking obvious.
posted by eunoia at 3:27 PM on July 17, 2013 [21 favorites]
Yeah, I'm not seeing any of the things listed at all. There might have been one or two people who, maybe if I dug into their history, said something vaguely hypocritical in this thread, but I have no urge to find out if that's the case.
For me one of the frustrating (and not remotely interesting) things is how so many people are not only bending over backwards to find justification for someone shooting an unarmed kid to death, but are also trying to call gotcha on the people who see the fuckedupness of such a thing. Like we're the ones not getting something completely fucking obvious.
posted by eunoia at 3:27 PM on July 17, 2013 [21 favorites]
Mikelieman, that seems a credible possible scenario - and in fact, I think I may have posed a hypothetical around Zimmerman reaching for a phone being interpreted as a possible reaching for a weapon. In fact, I at least have never said that I thought Martin attacked Zimmerman for the fun of it - I have always thought that if Martin attacked Zimmerman, it would be because Martin felt threatened.
I think the difficulty here is that it may be hard for some people to see how two people could /both/ have legitimate stand-your-ground claims at the same time - how two people could both have been trying to do the right thing, from their viewpoint, and both found themselves fighting for their life.
The things you mention in this possible scenario - standing too close, reaching for a phone - do not reach the level of initiating combat, for me and I suspect a lot of other people. Nor do they reach the level of unlawful detainment, because Martin was still free to go at all times - whether or not he thought he was. And that's part of the point - there may be racism at play, but I think it's less about the racism that Zimmerman carried, and more about the racism of a society where the majority of encounters play out one way, so that Martin wouldn't have felt safe knocking on someone's door and asking for help, or dialing 911 himself, or saying "Excuse me, you're a little too close for my comfort."
There's been some interesting work done about the low-level anxiety disorders that come about simply from living in a high-crime neighborhood with inadequate or hostile policing, or living under the weight of oppression. Essentially, our brains are very adaptive, and they adapt for the more dangerous situation, and then it's hard to change that for a situation in which it may not be the same.
Do you really not see the difference?
I do see where it is different for you - but I don't see where it is different in terms of judging other people for not doing so. Does that make sense? For example, I would never judge you for following dispatcher instructions in that situation, but I would /also/ not judge you if you wanted to go next door and check if your neighbors were okay. Especially if the squad response time in the area isn't great. And if something happened to you because you did that, I might say, "Man, I wish rtha had listened to the dispatcher and stayed where it was safe" but I would /never/ say "Rtha should have listened to the dispatcher, they're in charge and they should have done what they were told."
posted by corb at 3:30 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think the difficulty here is that it may be hard for some people to see how two people could /both/ have legitimate stand-your-ground claims at the same time - how two people could both have been trying to do the right thing, from their viewpoint, and both found themselves fighting for their life.
The things you mention in this possible scenario - standing too close, reaching for a phone - do not reach the level of initiating combat, for me and I suspect a lot of other people. Nor do they reach the level of unlawful detainment, because Martin was still free to go at all times - whether or not he thought he was. And that's part of the point - there may be racism at play, but I think it's less about the racism that Zimmerman carried, and more about the racism of a society where the majority of encounters play out one way, so that Martin wouldn't have felt safe knocking on someone's door and asking for help, or dialing 911 himself, or saying "Excuse me, you're a little too close for my comfort."
There's been some interesting work done about the low-level anxiety disorders that come about simply from living in a high-crime neighborhood with inadequate or hostile policing, or living under the weight of oppression. Essentially, our brains are very adaptive, and they adapt for the more dangerous situation, and then it's hard to change that for a situation in which it may not be the same.
Do you really not see the difference?
I do see where it is different for you - but I don't see where it is different in terms of judging other people for not doing so. Does that make sense? For example, I would never judge you for following dispatcher instructions in that situation, but I would /also/ not judge you if you wanted to go next door and check if your neighbors were okay. Especially if the squad response time in the area isn't great. And if something happened to you because you did that, I might say, "Man, I wish rtha had listened to the dispatcher and stayed where it was safe" but I would /never/ say "Rtha should have listened to the dispatcher, they're in charge and they should have done what they were told."
posted by corb at 3:30 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
For me one of the frustrating (and not remotely interesting) things is how so many people are not only bending over backwards to find justification for someone shooting an unarmed kid to death
Right and from all I've heard the reason he called 911 was he saw a black kid. That's not a reason to call 911.
posted by sweetkid at 3:30 PM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
Right and from all I've heard the reason he called 911 was he saw a black kid. That's not a reason to call 911.
posted by sweetkid at 3:30 PM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
I do see where it is different for you - but I don't see where it is different in terms of judging other people for not doing so. Does that make sense?
Yes. Except I was explicitly calling you out for saying it was weird that those of us who can often be seen carrying "COPS SUCK AMIRITE" signs would also advocate listening to the cops (or, in this case, the dispatcher) sometimes. There is no contradiction there. Me objecting to stop-and-frisk does not mean that I'm never going to listen to a police officer or dispatcher, or advise that that may be the best thing to do if you're not directly under attack from someone or in a building that's on fire.
I might have cut Zimmerman some slack for following Martin if he'd seen Martin actually doing something. I once wandered slowly behind a couple having a loud and somewhat physical altercation. I was on the phone with 911 while I did so, and stayed back so the couple didn't actually know I was following, but close enough to see if they turned a corner or went into a building.
He followed someone who was walking home with a bag of candy.
posted by rtha at 3:39 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
Yes. Except I was explicitly calling you out for saying it was weird that those of us who can often be seen carrying "COPS SUCK AMIRITE" signs would also advocate listening to the cops (or, in this case, the dispatcher) sometimes. There is no contradiction there. Me objecting to stop-and-frisk does not mean that I'm never going to listen to a police officer or dispatcher, or advise that that may be the best thing to do if you're not directly under attack from someone or in a building that's on fire.
I might have cut Zimmerman some slack for following Martin if he'd seen Martin actually doing something. I once wandered slowly behind a couple having a loud and somewhat physical altercation. I was on the phone with 911 while I did so, and stayed back so the couple didn't actually know I was following, but close enough to see if they turned a corner or went into a building.
He followed someone who was walking home with a bag of candy.
posted by rtha at 3:39 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
People who ordinarily would never mock obesity find themselves making catty comments about Zimmerman's weight and level of exercise.
Oh boy.
posted by angrycat at 3:40 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Oh boy.
posted by angrycat at 3:40 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
I do see where it is different for you - but I don't see where it is different in terms of judging other people for not doing so. Does that make sense?
In the context of your original statement? No, because it requires a removal of all context in this particular case and is approaching a weasel-word argument.
I have yet to see anyone on this site, let alone this thread, engage in the hypocrisy you pointed out. It's one thing to defend a high bar for complying with the police in an encounter where someone is being approached or detained, it's completely different to point out the problems of someone initiating an interaction with them for advice and/or support and disregarding that. It goes double for the high levels of animosity between law enforcement and the black community, and times infinity for those interactions in the South, and in this case a city in the South with a very long and sordid history of racial discrimination within law enforcement and the judicial system. To consider that any of that is hypocrisy requires, as they say, a certain moral flexibility.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [13 favorites]
In the context of your original statement? No, because it requires a removal of all context in this particular case and is approaching a weasel-word argument.
I have yet to see anyone on this site, let alone this thread, engage in the hypocrisy you pointed out. It's one thing to defend a high bar for complying with the police in an encounter where someone is being approached or detained, it's completely different to point out the problems of someone initiating an interaction with them for advice and/or support and disregarding that. It goes double for the high levels of animosity between law enforcement and the black community, and times infinity for those interactions in the South, and in this case a city in the South with a very long and sordid history of racial discrimination within law enforcement and the judicial system. To consider that any of that is hypocrisy requires, as they say, a certain moral flexibility.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [13 favorites]
The things you mention in this possible scenario - standing too close, reaching for a phone - do not reach the level of initiating combat, for me and I suspect a lot of other people. Nor do they reach the level of unlawful detainment, because Martin was still free to go at all times - whether or not he thought he was.
How many of us are black males walking alone in the south, with the historical legacy of being kidnapped, tortured, and hanged? That IS the context when you're being pursued by a Skinhead.
Given the totality of the situation, is there any doubt that Trayvon Martin has a REASONABLE APPREHENSION of imminent death or great bodily harm the moment Zimmerman made a furitive movement. And who knows, given Zimmerman's credibility why should we accept that he wasn't brandishing his weapon as he approached Martin?
And that "reaching for the phone" thing? That sort of move, which you think isn't directly provocative is exactly what predicated the death of Amadou Diallo. And those cops got the Seal of Approval via Wacky Jury Instructions too...
posted by mikelieman at 5:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
How many of us are black males walking alone in the south, with the historical legacy of being kidnapped, tortured, and hanged? That IS the context when you're being pursued by a Skinhead.
Given the totality of the situation, is there any doubt that Trayvon Martin has a REASONABLE APPREHENSION of imminent death or great bodily harm the moment Zimmerman made a furitive movement. And who knows, given Zimmerman's credibility why should we accept that he wasn't brandishing his weapon as he approached Martin?
And that "reaching for the phone" thing? That sort of move, which you think isn't directly provocative is exactly what predicated the death of Amadou Diallo. And those cops got the Seal of Approval via Wacky Jury Instructions too...
posted by mikelieman at 5:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [7 favorites]
where Zimmerman should have ignored good advice because of some bizarro vigilante impulse
No one thinks he should have ignored the advice. Obviously the advice was excellent and Zimmerman behaved foolishly. The issue is not the advice's merits, it's whether it has any bearing on the legal case against Zimmerman. When people try to argue that "ignoring a dispatcher" is some kind of felonious act so that they can pretend that by virtue of that act any death that resulted from Zimmerman's subsequent actions cannot be legally considered to be a legitimate act of self-defense then they are making an absurd argument. When they are people who would normally be very quick to insist upon the limits of police authority they are also making a hypocritical argument.
What Zimmerman did was wrong, was foolish and had tragic and avoidable consequences. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that what he did was illegal. Yes he was wrong to form suspicions about Martin's actions based on so little evidence. Yes, it is highly probable (to say the least) that those suspicions were based in racial stereotypes that had warped his judgment. But it is not illegal to have ones judgment warped by prevalent racial stereotypes and nor is it illegal to follow someone based on inadequately based suspicions. It is not illegal to approach anybody in a public place and ask them "what are you doing here?" And that's about all we know for a provable fact that Zimmerman did. What happened beyond that point (Zimmerman (legally) ignores the advice of the 911 dispatcher; Zimmerman chooses to follow Martin based on inadequate and probably racially-based stereotypes; Zimmerman accosts Martin) is a matter of conjecture, where the only really strong piece of evidence is an eyewitness report to the effect that there was a physical altercation in process that Zimmerman was on the losing end of. At that point you have a situation where, under Florida law as it now stands, in order to find Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense when he resorted to deadly force. I have seen not a single shred of unambiguous evidence that would rise to that bar. We can't prove that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation; we can't prove that he was ever physically in control of the altercation such that he had no reasonable fear for his safety etc. etc. It's just a slam-dunk case for the defense.
Sometimes tragic, awful and utterly avoidable things happen which simply cannot be redressed in criminal court. Luckily, I guess, you can all have the satisfaction of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of self-evidently being an evil racist who thinks all young black teens should be shot for the hell of it. That, apparently, never gets old.
posted by yoink at 5:08 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
No one thinks he should have ignored the advice. Obviously the advice was excellent and Zimmerman behaved foolishly. The issue is not the advice's merits, it's whether it has any bearing on the legal case against Zimmerman. When people try to argue that "ignoring a dispatcher" is some kind of felonious act so that they can pretend that by virtue of that act any death that resulted from Zimmerman's subsequent actions cannot be legally considered to be a legitimate act of self-defense then they are making an absurd argument. When they are people who would normally be very quick to insist upon the limits of police authority they are also making a hypocritical argument.
What Zimmerman did was wrong, was foolish and had tragic and avoidable consequences. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that what he did was illegal. Yes he was wrong to form suspicions about Martin's actions based on so little evidence. Yes, it is highly probable (to say the least) that those suspicions were based in racial stereotypes that had warped his judgment. But it is not illegal to have ones judgment warped by prevalent racial stereotypes and nor is it illegal to follow someone based on inadequately based suspicions. It is not illegal to approach anybody in a public place and ask them "what are you doing here?" And that's about all we know for a provable fact that Zimmerman did. What happened beyond that point (Zimmerman (legally) ignores the advice of the 911 dispatcher; Zimmerman chooses to follow Martin based on inadequate and probably racially-based stereotypes; Zimmerman accosts Martin) is a matter of conjecture, where the only really strong piece of evidence is an eyewitness report to the effect that there was a physical altercation in process that Zimmerman was on the losing end of. At that point you have a situation where, under Florida law as it now stands, in order to find Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense when he resorted to deadly force. I have seen not a single shred of unambiguous evidence that would rise to that bar. We can't prove that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation; we can't prove that he was ever physically in control of the altercation such that he had no reasonable fear for his safety etc. etc. It's just a slam-dunk case for the defense.
Sometimes tragic, awful and utterly avoidable things happen which simply cannot be redressed in criminal court. Luckily, I guess, you can all have the satisfaction of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of self-evidently being an evil racist who thinks all young black teens should be shot for the hell of it. That, apparently, never gets old.
posted by yoink at 5:08 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Luckily, I guess, you can all have the satisfaction of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of self-evidently being an evil racist who thinks all young black teens should be shot for the hell of it. That, apparently, never gets old.
Trust me, black men being shot for no good reason, yet with no consequences does indeed get extremely old.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:15 PM on July 17, 2013 [25 favorites]
Trust me, black men being shot for no good reason, yet with no consequences does indeed get extremely old.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:15 PM on July 17, 2013 [25 favorites]
But that is not at all the same thing as saying that what he did was illegal.
Involuntary Manslaughter is unlawful, and I don't think anyone will deny that the prosecution's case could easily sustain that charge. It is puzzling then that the jury instructions specifically excluded that charge.
It's like they planned this out. You have a 100% above board trial, and when you hand it off to the jury be 100% certain that if they follow their instructions, that the predetermined result will be obtained.
The fact that this is copied right from the Amadou Diallo playbook makes me wonder exactly how often this goes on.
And then I start crying again.
posted by mikelieman at 5:17 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Involuntary Manslaughter is unlawful, and I don't think anyone will deny that the prosecution's case could easily sustain that charge. It is puzzling then that the jury instructions specifically excluded that charge.
It's like they planned this out. You have a 100% above board trial, and when you hand it off to the jury be 100% certain that if they follow their instructions, that the predetermined result will be obtained.
The fact that this is copied right from the Amadou Diallo playbook makes me wonder exactly how often this goes on.
And then I start crying again.
posted by mikelieman at 5:17 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
"No one thinks he should have ignored the advice. Obviously the advice was excellent and Zimmerman behaved foolishly.
You might want to explain that to Corb again.
The issue is not the advice's merits, it's whether it has any bearing on the legal case against Zimmerman.
It's circumstantial evidence of ill-will and certainly informs the idea that he was looking for a confrontation.
When people try to argue that "ignoring a dispatcher" is some kind of felonious act so that they can pretend that by virtue of that act any death that resulted from Zimmerman's subsequent actions cannot be legally considered to be a legitimate act of self-defense then they are making an absurd argument.
They are also stuffed full of straw.
When they are people who would normally be very quick to insist upon the limits of police authority they are also making a hypocritical argument."
Yes, but for that to be true, they'd first have to actually exist.
"What Zimmerman did was wrong, was foolish and had tragic and avoidable consequences. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that what he did was illegal."
It's a long thread, so I'm going to assume you missed my (second?) comment, where I said that if it's legal to stalk and kill a black teenager, then the law should change.
"Luckily, I guess, you can all have the satisfaction of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of self-evidently being an evil racist who thinks all young black teens should be shot for the hell of it. That, apparently, never gets old."
What the hell are you even on about, you grandstanding mook? I have no problem saying that this is a racist system with a law that makes it too easy to kill black kids, and that's the biggest fucking problem currently in evidence, so some jibber-jabber about whether it's hypocritical to consider the dispatcher's conversation with Zimmerman is special pleading.
Now please confine yourself to the actual content of the conversation rather than your fetid fantasies of the evils of anti-racism.
posted by klangklangston at 5:18 PM on July 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
You might want to explain that to Corb again.
The issue is not the advice's merits, it's whether it has any bearing on the legal case against Zimmerman.
It's circumstantial evidence of ill-will and certainly informs the idea that he was looking for a confrontation.
When people try to argue that "ignoring a dispatcher" is some kind of felonious act so that they can pretend that by virtue of that act any death that resulted from Zimmerman's subsequent actions cannot be legally considered to be a legitimate act of self-defense then they are making an absurd argument.
They are also stuffed full of straw.
When they are people who would normally be very quick to insist upon the limits of police authority they are also making a hypocritical argument."
Yes, but for that to be true, they'd first have to actually exist.
"What Zimmerman did was wrong, was foolish and had tragic and avoidable consequences. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that what he did was illegal."
It's a long thread, so I'm going to assume you missed my (second?) comment, where I said that if it's legal to stalk and kill a black teenager, then the law should change.
"Luckily, I guess, you can all have the satisfaction of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of self-evidently being an evil racist who thinks all young black teens should be shot for the hell of it. That, apparently, never gets old."
What the hell are you even on about, you grandstanding mook? I have no problem saying that this is a racist system with a law that makes it too easy to kill black kids, and that's the biggest fucking problem currently in evidence, so some jibber-jabber about whether it's hypocritical to consider the dispatcher's conversation with Zimmerman is special pleading.
Now please confine yourself to the actual content of the conversation rather than your fetid fantasies of the evils of anti-racism.
posted by klangklangston at 5:18 PM on July 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
Involuntary Manslaughter is unlawful, and I don't think anyone will deny that the prosecution's case could easily sustain that charge.
Self defense is a defense to that as well. The jury completely bought Zimmerman's self defense claim. They would have acquitted him of any charge having to do with the actual killing.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Self defense is a defense to that as well. The jury completely bought Zimmerman's self defense claim. They would have acquitted him of any charge having to do with the actual killing.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
"The jury completely bought Zimmerman's self defense claim."
Well, to the extent that they were constrained in only considering the seconds immediately before Trayvon's death, and that the presumption of self-defense in Florida makes that conclusion rather unavoidable given what can be proven.
posted by klangklangston at 5:21 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, to the extent that they were constrained in only considering the seconds immediately before Trayvon's death, and that the presumption of self-defense in Florida makes that conclusion rather unavoidable given what can be proven.
posted by klangklangston at 5:21 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Jury bought the self-defense claim because the prosecution simply didn't point out that Zimmerman's perceptions as he pulled the trigger of the potential for imminent gbh or death weren't reasonable.
And given how NONE of his decisions that night were reasonable, it would have been trivial. This is, of course, consistent with the hypothesis of the prosecution conspiring with the defense in the construction of the jury instructions to return a predetermined verdict.
posted by mikelieman at 5:23 PM on July 17, 2013
And given how NONE of his decisions that night were reasonable, it would have been trivial. This is, of course, consistent with the hypothesis of the prosecution conspiring with the defense in the construction of the jury instructions to return a predetermined verdict.
posted by mikelieman at 5:23 PM on July 17, 2013
Having watched the full interview with juror B37 I don't believe that the prosecution could have persuaded her to your position. She was an extremely problematic juror for getting any sort of conviction.
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Is collude a better word than conspire?
posted by mikelieman at 5:25 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by mikelieman at 5:25 PM on July 17, 2013
I don't believe that the prosecution could have persuaded her to your position.
That presumes that the prosecution was interested in a conviction in the first place. They knew what they were getting from voir-dire. And they didn't have any issues with it, so.... Did you see my earlier hypothesis? Let's consider this another datum in support?
posted by mikelieman at 5:28 PM on July 17, 2013
That presumes that the prosecution was interested in a conviction in the first place. They knew what they were getting from voir-dire. And they didn't have any issues with it, so.... Did you see my earlier hypothesis? Let's consider this another datum in support?
posted by mikelieman at 5:28 PM on July 17, 2013
They didn't conspire on the jury instructions. The jury instructions were more or less the standard instructions in self defense case. The problem you should be focusing on is that the law combined with some people's predisposition to see young black men as inherently threatening makes disproving self defense in these kinds of cases very difficult. It's got nothing to do with the prosecution throwing the case.
These conspiracy theories about the prosecution throwing the case are problematic for two reasons:
1) They're wrong.
2) They let the real problems off the hook. If you can blame these prosecutors and say that another set of better prosecutors who werent evvvvvil would have gotten the correct result you don't grapple with the real, systemic problems of race and justice.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on July 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
These conspiracy theories about the prosecution throwing the case are problematic for two reasons:
1) They're wrong.
2) They let the real problems off the hook. If you can blame these prosecutors and say that another set of better prosecutors who werent evvvvvil would have gotten the correct result you don't grapple with the real, systemic problems of race and justice.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on July 17, 2013 [8 favorites]
"Having watched the full interview with juror B37 I don't believe that the prosecution could have persuaded her to your position. She was an extremely problematic juror for getting any sort of conviction."
That's a fair point, but in that case, a mistrial or hung jury would have been fine (though I don't know Florida's rules on retrial).
posted by klangklangston at 5:29 PM on July 17, 2013
That's a fair point, but in that case, a mistrial or hung jury would have been fine (though I don't know Florida's rules on retrial).
posted by klangklangston at 5:29 PM on July 17, 2013
Klang: you may be right but unless some of the other jurors speak out we don't know how persuadable they were. The fact that four of them essentially disowned B37's comments are suggestive but it would be nice if one of them would do an interview. I understand why they don't... who needs that sort of trouble? But it would be helpful.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yoink, I don't think "ignoring a police dispatcher is a felony" is something much stated here. "Ignoring a police dispatcher's advice is one of a number of indications that Zimmerman was bent on engineering an unnecessary confrontation" is a more common formulation.
It's important in these situations that we do not make things up, because it suggests that we want to make this about whatever preoccupies us, rather than about the death of a 17-year old boy and what that says about Florida and about America.
Corb wants this to be about the vindication of her right to kill in self-defence. You seem to want it to be about your desire to feel put upon by lefties.
The victim here, however, is not your tender feelings, nor is it corb's freedom to use imaginary guns in New York. The victim is a 17-year old boy, and it might be worth looking at the equivocating language you used to get around actually mentioning that a 17-year old boy was shot and killed - foolish behavior, tragic and avoidable consequences, resorting to self-defence.
The only time you actually touch on the fact that a young black man was shot and killed is in a rhetorical flourish as you demand an ambulance be dispatched at once to the site of your bruised feelings. That's not great, in terms of interacting in a useful way with the discussion as it actually exists, or indeed the events as they actually happened.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:35 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
It's important in these situations that we do not make things up, because it suggests that we want to make this about whatever preoccupies us, rather than about the death of a 17-year old boy and what that says about Florida and about America.
Corb wants this to be about the vindication of her right to kill in self-defence. You seem to want it to be about your desire to feel put upon by lefties.
The victim here, however, is not your tender feelings, nor is it corb's freedom to use imaginary guns in New York. The victim is a 17-year old boy, and it might be worth looking at the equivocating language you used to get around actually mentioning that a 17-year old boy was shot and killed - foolish behavior, tragic and avoidable consequences, resorting to self-defence.
The only time you actually touch on the fact that a young black man was shot and killed is in a rhetorical flourish as you demand an ambulance be dispatched at once to the site of your bruised feelings. That's not great, in terms of interacting in a useful way with the discussion as it actually exists, or indeed the events as they actually happened.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:35 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
Show me some reasonable doubt to that scenario.
mikelieman, I think that looks like a very plausible scenario, but do you not see that if that is how things happened, Zimmerman would have done nothing illegal up to the point of the physical conflict? What I don't understand is how the vast majority of people in this thread, it seems, can't see how both men could have ended up feeling threatened. That it could have been a failure of understanding on both sides, and that the misunderstanding could have been reinforced on either side by the actions of the other. And that one could believe this is likely how things happened, while still recognizing that Zimmerman's actions set the whole thing in motion.
I agree with corb up to this point, although I disagree with her personally about "stand your ground" because I believe people should always (outside of the home) have a duty to retreat from conflict, if retreat is possible (and I do believe it was possible for both Zimmerman and Martin). I also hate the legality of CCWs; if Zimmerman's gun hadn't been there, there's no way Martin would have ended up dead. The cops, who were on the way, would have broken up the fight, if nothing else.
posted by torticat at 5:37 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
mikelieman, I think that looks like a very plausible scenario, but do you not see that if that is how things happened, Zimmerman would have done nothing illegal up to the point of the physical conflict? What I don't understand is how the vast majority of people in this thread, it seems, can't see how both men could have ended up feeling threatened. That it could have been a failure of understanding on both sides, and that the misunderstanding could have been reinforced on either side by the actions of the other. And that one could believe this is likely how things happened, while still recognizing that Zimmerman's actions set the whole thing in motion.
I agree with corb up to this point, although I disagree with her personally about "stand your ground" because I believe people should always (outside of the home) have a duty to retreat from conflict, if retreat is possible (and I do believe it was possible for both Zimmerman and Martin). I also hate the legality of CCWs; if Zimmerman's gun hadn't been there, there's no way Martin would have ended up dead. The cops, who were on the way, would have broken up the fight, if nothing else.
posted by torticat at 5:37 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know about Corey, aside from there seems to be some weird political stuff there. But I watched hours and hours of that trial each day unfiltered by cable news. Bernie De La Rionda, John Guy, and Richard Mantei all looked extremely dedicated to the case and to getting a conviction. To me it seemed like they believed in their hearts Zimmerman was guilty.
Now, it's their job to look that way to people like me, but I don't believe for a second they threw anything. Were tactical errors made in the trial? Yeah, it looks that way. I don't think they threw anything.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:42 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Now, it's their job to look that way to people like me, but I don't believe for a second they threw anything. Were tactical errors made in the trial? Yeah, it looks that way. I don't think they threw anything.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:42 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
The jury instructions were more or less the standard instructions in self defense case.
Any jury instructions omitting 782.07 are incomplete, aren't they?
And that section was omitted with the consent of the prosecution, wasn't it?
Any jury instructions omitting 782.07 are incomplete, aren't they?
And that section was omitted with the consent of the prosecution, wasn't it?
782,07 Manslaughter;...posted by mikelieman at 5:43 PM on July 17, 2013
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
mikelieman, I think that looks like a very plausible scenario, but do you not see that if that is how things happened, Zimmerman would have done nothing illegal up to the point of the physical conflict?
Mikelieman's comment was precipitated by corb asking for a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. It has nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman was doing anything illegal.
That it could have been a failure of understanding on both sides, and that the misunderstanding could have been reinforced on either side by the actions of the other.
What exactly do you propose Trayvon Martin could have done to make George Zimmerman not feel threatened by his walking down the street?
posted by kagredon at 5:43 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Mikelieman's comment was precipitated by corb asking for a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. It has nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman was doing anything illegal.
That it could have been a failure of understanding on both sides, and that the misunderstanding could have been reinforced on either side by the actions of the other.
What exactly do you propose Trayvon Martin could have done to make George Zimmerman not feel threatened by his walking down the street?
posted by kagredon at 5:43 PM on July 17, 2013 [5 favorites]
Right and from all I've heard the reason he called 911 was he saw a black kid. That's not a reason to call 911.
The reason he called 911 was that he was a neigborhood watch captain who saw an unfamiliar teenager that was behaving in a suspicious manner that looked like casing houses. The phone call is in the NYT link I provided above:
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy ... 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. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring ... looking at all the houses.
He expanded on this in his police interview:
In his video re-enactment for Sanford police the day after the shooting, Zimmerman explained why he found Trayvon suspicious.
Trayvon was in the yard of Frank Taaffe, a Neighborhood Watch buddy whose town house had recently been burglarized.
The teen was in the grass, not on the sidewalk, Zimmerman told officers.
"He was just leisurely looking at the house," Zimmerman said. "That's what threw me off. It's raining. I didn't understand why somebody would be just stopping in the rain."
Greater context for the phone call is provided by this Reuters story from last year, which notes a pattern of break-ins in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had just recently reported someone behaving in a similar manner to Martin, but in this case, really had been casing houses for burglary:
On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors... By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled... On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized... Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Paired with the FBI interviews of 30 different people that found no evidence that Zimmerman had racial animus, this basically looks like one of the worst throw-away newsblotter tragedies the media and the public could've chosen to blow-up into a racist murder/travesty of justice.
There are 300 million people in the US, some juicy injustices just have to be there with that kind of sample size. It's hard for me to fathom why people can't pick out the right racist crimes for their collective catharsis of righteous indignation.
posted by dgaicun at 5:44 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
The reason he called 911 was that he was a neigborhood watch captain who saw an unfamiliar teenager that was behaving in a suspicious manner that looked like casing houses. The phone call is in the NYT link I provided above:
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy ... 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. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring ... looking at all the houses.
He expanded on this in his police interview:
In his video re-enactment for Sanford police the day after the shooting, Zimmerman explained why he found Trayvon suspicious.
Trayvon was in the yard of Frank Taaffe, a Neighborhood Watch buddy whose town house had recently been burglarized.
The teen was in the grass, not on the sidewalk, Zimmerman told officers.
"He was just leisurely looking at the house," Zimmerman said. "That's what threw me off. It's raining. I didn't understand why somebody would be just stopping in the rain."
Greater context for the phone call is provided by this Reuters story from last year, which notes a pattern of break-ins in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had just recently reported someone behaving in a similar manner to Martin, but in this case, really had been casing houses for burglary:
On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors... By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled... On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized... Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Paired with the FBI interviews of 30 different people that found no evidence that Zimmerman had racial animus, this basically looks like one of the worst throw-away newsblotter tragedies the media and the public could've chosen to blow-up into a racist murder/travesty of justice.
There are 300 million people in the US, some juicy injustices just have to be there with that kind of sample size. It's hard for me to fathom why people can't pick out the right racist crimes for their collective catharsis of righteous indignation.
posted by dgaicun at 5:44 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
What I don't understand is how the vast majority of people in this thread, it seems, can't see how both men could have ended up feeling threatened. That it could have been a failure of understanding on both sides, and that the misunderstanding could have been reinforced on either side by the actions of the other. And that one could believe this is likely how things happened, while still recognizing that Zimmerman's actions set the whole thing in motion.
I don't think there's a "vast majority" think this at all. In fact, I see most people positing that the possibility could go either way. It's corb that stated she couldn't (see below).
I agree with corb up to this point
I should note that her position changes on this. In the post that mikelieman was responding to, she said that Zimmerman starting the fight was "ludicrous".
posted by zombieflanders at 5:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
I don't think there's a "vast majority" think this at all. In fact, I see most people positing that the possibility could go either way. It's corb that stated she couldn't (see below).
I agree with corb up to this point
I should note that her position changes on this. In the post that mikelieman was responding to, she said that Zimmerman starting the fight was "ludicrous".
posted by zombieflanders at 5:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think the Zimmerman reaching for his phone scenario is unlikely, but the more general scenario of "Martin may have initiated the physical confrontation (grabbing or throwing punches) because he thought Zimmerman was ready to draw and fire a weapon" certainly sounds plausible to me. Though Zimmerman's gun was a rather small one, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have his hand hovering around his holster preparing to draw, given that he was patrolling for burglars who may have been armed.
I still think it's far more likely that the guy with the gun starts the fight than the guy without, but if Martin were the one who initiated the first physical contact, it seems quite reasonable that he'd be doing so to wrestle the gun away rather than being shot in the back, and the idea that he wasn't aware that Zimmerman had a gun by that point seems far less likely.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
I still think it's far more likely that the guy with the gun starts the fight than the guy without, but if Martin were the one who initiated the first physical contact, it seems quite reasonable that he'd be doing so to wrestle the gun away rather than being shot in the back, and the idea that he wasn't aware that Zimmerman had a gun by that point seems far less likely.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:46 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
What I don't understand is how the vast majority of people in this thread, it seems, can't see how both men could have ended up feeling threatened.
One was a 29 year old armed man. The other was a 17 year old boy. The adult was not being threatened or followed by the child, so no, I'm not seeing much of a reason why George Zimmerman should feel threatened.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 PM on July 17, 2013 [18 favorites]
One was a 29 year old armed man. The other was a 17 year old boy. The adult was not being threatened or followed by the child, so no, I'm not seeing much of a reason why George Zimmerman should feel threatened.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 PM on July 17, 2013 [18 favorites]
I think the Zimmerman reaching for his phone scenario is unlikely,
That is the event Zimmerman reports immediately before the Giant Negro Ran Amok and he needed to save the village by ending the monster's rampage...
Well, the record shows Zimmerman claiming that he went to reach for his cellphone right before Martin popped him in the nose... The rest is my editorial license, and perhaps uncalled for.
posted by mikelieman at 5:48 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
That is the event Zimmerman reports immediately before the Giant Negro Ran Amok and he needed to save the village by ending the monster's rampage...
Well, the record shows Zimmerman claiming that he went to reach for his cellphone right before Martin popped him in the nose... The rest is my editorial license, and perhaps uncalled for.
posted by mikelieman at 5:48 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
corb: "find themselves more inclined to support that police (and in this case, not even police but just a dispatcher) should have their mere suggestions obeyed instantly - to be compliant and peaceful in the force of the law."
The identity of the person that told Zimmerman to think better of his actions isn't relevant. Having been told and disregarding the advice pretty much proves that you weren't just "on autopilot" or whatever and actually thought about your plan. It's not that he disobeyed the lawful order of a peace officer (since he didn't), it's that if you do reckless things and someone gets killed, that's manslaughter and people shouldn't do that. Zimmerman having been told it was unnecessary for him to follow Martin points toward Zimmerman's state of mind being the reckless-and-I-know-it end of the spectrum than the poor-bumbling-George end.
posted by wierdo at 5:50 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
The identity of the person that told Zimmerman to think better of his actions isn't relevant. Having been told and disregarding the advice pretty much proves that you weren't just "on autopilot" or whatever and actually thought about your plan. It's not that he disobeyed the lawful order of a peace officer (since he didn't), it's that if you do reckless things and someone gets killed, that's manslaughter and people shouldn't do that. Zimmerman having been told it was unnecessary for him to follow Martin points toward Zimmerman's state of mind being the reckless-and-I-know-it end of the spectrum than the poor-bumbling-George end.
posted by wierdo at 5:50 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
How about this scenario?
Zimmerman had drawn his gun and was holding it and his flashlight just like in the movies when the real cops are looking for a suspect. In this context that's felony brandishing and thus Martin's right to self-defense is perfectly clear, since Zimmerman is committing a felony and everything.
posted by mikelieman at 5:51 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman had drawn his gun and was holding it and his flashlight just like in the movies when the real cops are looking for a suspect. In this context that's felony brandishing and thus Martin's right to self-defense is perfectly clear, since Zimmerman is committing a felony and everything.
posted by mikelieman at 5:51 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Certainly. And if there was a single shred of evidence that happened the prosecutors probably would have run with it.
posted by Justinian at 5:53 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:53 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Again, since they bungled the jury instructions so precisely, this is all hypothetical. "Evidence" is just stuff to parade past the jurors and take up space in the transcript at this point. Seriously. It's all bullshit until you can study how the jury instructions are constructed, and what options they present the jury. In this instance, omitting the culpable negligence aspect and requiring 'manslaughter by act'.
Masterful.
posted by mikelieman at 5:57 PM on July 17, 2013
Masterful.
posted by mikelieman at 5:57 PM on July 17, 2013
It. Doesn't. Matter. The jury bought the self defense claim. Self defense is a defense to manslaughter whether by culpable negligence or not. You can't get a homicide conviction of any sort if the jury believes the killing was justified.
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
the media and the public could've chosen to blow-up into a racist murder/travesty of justice
As explained in the numerous essays linked in this thread (and the other Zimmerman threads), racism played a role. Its role isn't some fever-dream of sensationalist media or an overzealous public. I don't find the FBI report all that useful, because people tend to have very particular and very wrong ideas about what racism is and who is racist. Racism in America is so terrible because it is often so unconscious. Racism played a role in the police and DA's initial hesitation to investigate the crime as it should have been investigated. Racism played a role in the horrendous commentary that demonized Martin. It played a role in Juror B37's perception of the events and the law.
Those who call attention to and condemn racism do not do so for "collective catharsis of righteous indignation." They do so to oppose racism and try to lessen its effects in American society. Even crimes that have nothing to do directly with racism are still tainted by the racism that permeates our culture and institutions as demonstrated by racially disproportionate arrest and sentencing statistics [pdf]. Any case where racism plays a role is the "right" case to condemn racism and educate about its operation.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:07 PM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
As explained in the numerous essays linked in this thread (and the other Zimmerman threads), racism played a role. Its role isn't some fever-dream of sensationalist media or an overzealous public. I don't find the FBI report all that useful, because people tend to have very particular and very wrong ideas about what racism is and who is racist. Racism in America is so terrible because it is often so unconscious. Racism played a role in the police and DA's initial hesitation to investigate the crime as it should have been investigated. Racism played a role in the horrendous commentary that demonized Martin. It played a role in Juror B37's perception of the events and the law.
Those who call attention to and condemn racism do not do so for "collective catharsis of righteous indignation." They do so to oppose racism and try to lessen its effects in American society. Even crimes that have nothing to do directly with racism are still tainted by the racism that permeates our culture and institutions as demonstrated by racially disproportionate arrest and sentencing statistics [pdf]. Any case where racism plays a role is the "right" case to condemn racism and educate about its operation.
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:07 PM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
mikelieman: Maybe I misunderstood your comment above, but manslaughter was most certainly included in the jury instructions under lesser crimes
posted by snaparapans at 6:08 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 6:08 PM on July 17, 2013
The reason he called 911 was that he was a neigborhood watch captain who saw an unfamiliar teenager that was behaving in a suspicious manner that looked like casing houses. The phone call is in the NYT link I provided above[...]He expanded on this in his police interview
The behavior he mentions is that he was "walking around" and "leisurely looking at the house." As far as I can tell, that leaves him with no possible way to not look suspicious. And has been discussed many, many times here, it would have been impossible for him to diagnose marijuana use (if it even occurred anywhere near that date, which the blood and urine appears to rule out) from inside a car, far away, at night, or indeed anywhere outside of a drug testing facility.
Greater context for the phone call is provided by this Reuters story from last year, which notes a pattern of break-ins in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had just recently reported someone behaving in a similar manner to Martin, but in this case, really had been casing houses for burglary
Are you actually telling us that "leisurely looking at the house" is the same as "peering in the windows"? Because if that's the case, that means the George Zimmermans in every neighborhood I've ever been in were justified in making a 911 call (and apparently shooting me down).
Paired with the FBI interviews of 30 different people that found no evidence that Zimmerman had racial animus
Actually, it said that they didn't find anyone "willing to go on record," and cites Det. Serino as an example of the more skeptical interviewees, which is...problematic:
this basically looks like one of the worst throw-away newsblotter tragedies the media and the public could've chosen to blow-up into a racist murder/travesty of justice
Myself and others pointed out above that you seemed ignorant of the history of racism in this country's people, judicial system (from the Constitution on down), and law enforcement. It doesn't seem as if you've bothered to educate yourself on this.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:17 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
The behavior he mentions is that he was "walking around" and "leisurely looking at the house." As far as I can tell, that leaves him with no possible way to not look suspicious. And has been discussed many, many times here, it would have been impossible for him to diagnose marijuana use (if it even occurred anywhere near that date, which the blood and urine appears to rule out) from inside a car, far away, at night, or indeed anywhere outside of a drug testing facility.
Greater context for the phone call is provided by this Reuters story from last year, which notes a pattern of break-ins in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had just recently reported someone behaving in a similar manner to Martin, but in this case, really had been casing houses for burglary
Are you actually telling us that "leisurely looking at the house" is the same as "peering in the windows"? Because if that's the case, that means the George Zimmermans in every neighborhood I've ever been in were justified in making a 911 call (and apparently shooting me down).
Paired with the FBI interviews of 30 different people that found no evidence that Zimmerman had racial animus
Actually, it said that they didn't find anyone "willing to go on record," and cites Det. Serino as an example of the more skeptical interviewees, which is...problematic:
All of Serino's interview, which was put into evidence last week in the trial, is pretty damning and certainly looks like effective police work. That's when things get sticky.And that doesn't even get into how he had consistently made suspicious persons reports focusing on black men (at least 5 in the 6 months before the shooting) or the e-mails to his neighbors telling them to be on the lookout for young black men who didn't belong, for starters.
Despite these obvious inconsistencies and questions mere days after the shooting, Det. Serino felt there wasn't enough evidence to arrest, let alone file charges against Zimmerman. This is where the problems start for most observers of this case. A police officer who shoots an unarmed person will automatically get a two week paid suspension while the department investigates--and they're trained law enforcement. Heck, Aaron Hernandez of the New England Patriots was arrested and the cops only had a broken cell phone, broken security camera and some Molly Maids as evidence--and he was a millionaire football player.
The point being, there are hundreds of thousands of cases with much less evidence on the table than the Zimmerman case where people get arrested, even if they are released later. Yet somehow Detective Serino didn't feel like filing charges against Zimmerman even though in his own testimony to the FBI he said Zimmerman had "a little hero complex," and that his story sounded "scripted."
The remainder of the story has been fodder for the right wing and Fox news for the last year. Serino claims he was 'pressured' to file charges by fellow officers and higher ups in the state of Florida, and he was demoted in his job. Consequently, during this trial Serino has made it a point to throw a temper tantrum during testimony, editorializing on George Zimmerman's behalf, answering questions in ways that help the defense, and on more than one occasion actually lying on the stand in direct contradiction to his aggressive interview with Zimmerman from last spring.
this basically looks like one of the worst throw-away newsblotter tragedies the media and the public could've chosen to blow-up into a racist murder/travesty of justice
Myself and others pointed out above that you seemed ignorant of the history of racism in this country's people, judicial system (from the Constitution on down), and law enforcement. It doesn't seem as if you've bothered to educate yourself on this.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:17 PM on July 17, 2013 [15 favorites]
I guess what I'm also trying to say is, racism doesn't always show up in a hood with a burning cross. At least that's easy to see and deal with. It can show up in a lot of little different ways, it can be hidden or ignored by those around, or much like how patriarchy can hurt men it can be invisible to the person or people being racist and hurt both sides. It's even possible that this case falls under that last category. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean it was absent.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:56 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:56 PM on July 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
There's one legal aspect of this case that I'm still confused about, pertaining to the self-defense defense and who has the burden of proof. From what I've read on the net and based on the discussions around the time this killing happened, self defense is considered an "affirmative defense", so the "evidential burden" to establish it is on the defendant. Therefore it's not really true that anyone can just kill someone without witnesses and just say "it was self-defense, prove it wasn't" and get away with it (not according to the law anyway). For example in the Zimmerman trial evidence was presented that Martin was on top when he was shot, there was the eyewitness testimony of John Good etc. Once this evidential burden has been met then the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution.
What I want to know are two things: firstly, under Florida law who or what determines whether the defense has met the evidential burden for claiming self defense? The Wikipedia article on evidential burden says that it's usually the judge but not always. Did the judge in the Zimmerman trial explicitly make a ruling this way? If so then that's really the deciding factor IMO because that's what turns it back into a case of "prove it wasn't". Secondly, if not and it's the jury's job, and self defense is something that the defense needs to establish "by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence" then why was O'Mara allowed to get away with this chart?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:58 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
What I want to know are two things: firstly, under Florida law who or what determines whether the defense has met the evidential burden for claiming self defense? The Wikipedia article on evidential burden says that it's usually the judge but not always. Did the judge in the Zimmerman trial explicitly make a ruling this way? If so then that's really the deciding factor IMO because that's what turns it back into a case of "prove it wasn't". Secondly, if not and it's the jury's job, and self defense is something that the defense needs to establish "by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence" then why was O'Mara allowed to get away with this chart?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:58 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Despite these obvious inconsistencies and questions mere days after the shooting, Det. Serino felt there wasn't enough evidence to arrest, let alone file charges against Zimmerman.
The lead homicide detective probing the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin wanted the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer slapped with manslaughter charges from the get-go.
Investigator Chris Serino, of the Sanford Police Department, expressed doubt in George Zimmerman’s account of how the shooting went down, ABC News reported Tuesday.
Serino wanted Zimmerman, 28, tossed behind bars, but the state Attorney’s Office said there was not enough evidence to make an arrest, multiple sources told ABC News.
Basicly Serino thought the story was consistent...with a guy admitting manslaughter.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on July 17, 2013
The lead homicide detective probing the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin wanted the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer slapped with manslaughter charges from the get-go.
Investigator Chris Serino, of the Sanford Police Department, expressed doubt in George Zimmerman’s account of how the shooting went down, ABC News reported Tuesday.
Serino wanted Zimmerman, 28, tossed behind bars, but the state Attorney’s Office said there was not enough evidence to make an arrest, multiple sources told ABC News.
Basicly Serino thought the story was consistent...with a guy admitting manslaughter.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on July 17, 2013
It's hard for me to fathom why people can't pick out the right racist crimes for their collective catharsis of righteous indignation.
If you don't get why people are upset about a young, innocent black male stalked and killed while on a candy run and in the midst of returning to his house, then I'm honestly don't know what to say to you. If you'd like to suggest some other death which would meet with your approval for anger, I'm all ears.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:01 PM on July 17, 2013 [26 favorites]
If you don't get why people are upset about a young, innocent black male stalked and killed while on a candy run and in the midst of returning to his house, then I'm honestly don't know what to say to you. If you'd like to suggest some other death which would meet with your approval for anger, I'm all ears.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:01 PM on July 17, 2013 [26 favorites]
Secondly, if not and it's the jury's job, and self defense is something that the defense needs to establish "by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence" then why was O'Mara allowed to get away with this chart?.
This isn't exactly right. In Florida, as in the vast majority of states, the rule is such that once the defense introduces evidence of self-defense, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. See this post from law professor Eugene Volokh (posted way up in the thread by snaparapans, just as a hat tip).
posted by dsfan at 7:10 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
This isn't exactly right. In Florida, as in the vast majority of states, the rule is such that once the defense introduces evidence of self-defense, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. See this post from law professor Eugene Volokh (posted way up in the thread by snaparapans, just as a hat tip).
posted by dsfan at 7:10 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
If Trayvon Martin was Jewish, at what point when the Skinhead was following him would his right of self-defense began? When the Skinhead gets out of the car to chase after the Jew? Or when the Skinhead approaches the Jew and gets close enough to be a real threat to their personal safety?
posted by mikelieman at 7:18 PM on July 17, 2013
posted by mikelieman at 7:18 PM on July 17, 2013
Speaking of institutional racism in Florida.
Let me summarize the story: a 51 year old black man has a stroke while driving on the highway. A passerby calls 911 reporting a possible drunk driver. A sheriff's deputy and state trooper both respond to the scene to find a confused man not responding to their commands. A report filed by the deputy states he did not detect the smell of alcohol and noticed his left arm "drooping", which he interpreted as the stroke victim reaching for a weapon. He was arrested. An EMT examined him at the scene and advised there was nothing medically wrong with him, but that he be admitted for psychiatric evaluation.
He was instead taken to the county jail, in a wheelchair, with one side of his body visibly limp (check out the video). The nurse on duty claims he is faking an injury. He is recommended again for psych eval. He is dumped in a cell, where he languishes for 36 hours, crawling around using only his right arm and leg and soiling himself while crying for help.
Finally, he is taken to the hospital, where he is diagnosed with an ischemic stroke, slips into a coma, and dies.
I just want to note that the ad that played before I watched the video in the link was for a nursing home. This is FLORIDA. How can several cops, a team of paramedics and medical staff at the jail not recognize a stroke for thirty-six hours?
Is it possible that the unshakable assumption of criminality on the stroke victim's part had something to do with his skin color? Also, notice the Tampa Bay Times's choice of headline: "Inmate's untreated, fatal stroke results in $1 million settlement by Hillsborough sheriff, jail medical provider". INMATE!? Sure, technically he was, I guess, after he was arrested for having a stroke while black.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [45 favorites]
Let me summarize the story: a 51 year old black man has a stroke while driving on the highway. A passerby calls 911 reporting a possible drunk driver. A sheriff's deputy and state trooper both respond to the scene to find a confused man not responding to their commands. A report filed by the deputy states he did not detect the smell of alcohol and noticed his left arm "drooping", which he interpreted as the stroke victim reaching for a weapon. He was arrested. An EMT examined him at the scene and advised there was nothing medically wrong with him, but that he be admitted for psychiatric evaluation.
He was instead taken to the county jail, in a wheelchair, with one side of his body visibly limp (check out the video). The nurse on duty claims he is faking an injury. He is recommended again for psych eval. He is dumped in a cell, where he languishes for 36 hours, crawling around using only his right arm and leg and soiling himself while crying for help.
Finally, he is taken to the hospital, where he is diagnosed with an ischemic stroke, slips into a coma, and dies.
I just want to note that the ad that played before I watched the video in the link was for a nursing home. This is FLORIDA. How can several cops, a team of paramedics and medical staff at the jail not recognize a stroke for thirty-six hours?
Is it possible that the unshakable assumption of criminality on the stroke victim's part had something to do with his skin color? Also, notice the Tampa Bay Times's choice of headline: "Inmate's untreated, fatal stroke results in $1 million settlement by Hillsborough sheriff, jail medical provider". INMATE!? Sure, technically he was, I guess, after he was arrested for having a stroke while black.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:19 PM on July 17, 2013 [45 favorites]
dsfan,
Thanks, that's (partly) the clarification I was looking for. It doesn't answer my first question though, which is when the evidential burden of the self-defense claim gets met, and when the burden of proof shifts onto the prosecution to prove it wasn't. Is it as soon as the defense claims "it was self defense"? Is it when any evidence whatsoever supporting self-defense gets ruled admissible? Is the "evidential burden" for a self defense claim something that judges in Florida have to make rulings on specifically, or just the individual items of evidence?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:27 PM on July 17, 2013
Thanks, that's (partly) the clarification I was looking for. It doesn't answer my first question though, which is when the evidential burden of the self-defense claim gets met, and when the burden of proof shifts onto the prosecution to prove it wasn't. Is it as soon as the defense claims "it was self defense"? Is it when any evidence whatsoever supporting self-defense gets ruled admissible? Is the "evidential burden" for a self defense claim something that judges in Florida have to make rulings on specifically, or just the individual items of evidence?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:27 PM on July 17, 2013
It doesn't answer my first question though, which is when the evidential burden of the self-defense claim gets met, and when the burden of proof shifts onto the prosecution to prove it wasn't. Is it as soon as the defense claims "it was self defense"? Is it when any evidence whatsoever supporting self-defense gets ruled admissible? Is the "evidential burden" for a self defense claim something that judges in Florida have to make rulings on specifically, or just the individual items of evidence?
That I am not certain of, but I know that it's not a particularly high bar. I think based on what I have read (that I cannot now seem to find) that there has to be some evidence rather than just pure speculation, though.
posted by dsfan at 7:45 PM on July 17, 2013
That I am not certain of, but I know that it's not a particularly high bar. I think based on what I have read (that I cannot now seem to find) that there has to be some evidence rather than just pure speculation, though.
posted by dsfan at 7:45 PM on July 17, 2013
Good god, [expletive deleted] indeed.
If you guys have a moment, please email or otherwise contact the writer of that story (pjamison@tampabay.com), thank him for writing about that tragedy, and ask that the article title be changed from 'inmate' to 'Tampa Man', as he terms Coach Hicks in tweets about the story. Make the subject line "Change the title of the Allen Hicks article".
posted by cashman at 8:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
If you guys have a moment, please email or otherwise contact the writer of that story (pjamison@tampabay.com), thank him for writing about that tragedy, and ask that the article title be changed from 'inmate' to 'Tampa Man', as he terms Coach Hicks in tweets about the story. Make the subject line "Change the title of the Allen Hicks article".
posted by cashman at 8:03 PM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]
Jesus fucking hell
Oversharing time
A few months ago, my dad, who is only a few years older than Allen Hicks Sr. was, wrecked his car into a highway barrier when he had a seizure.
My father has been epileptic for most of his life, though for most of that time, medicine has worked very well to control it (which is why he had a license in the first place.) But I've still seen him post-seizure before. Even after he's regained consciousness, it takes a while for him to fully regain his ability to speak and move fluently. He told me that he woke up, with no idea what had happened and a police officer telling him the EMTs were on their way. It is entirely plausible to me that he would have trouble responding to requests to get to his license or to get out of the car, if he had just come to. It's entirely plausible to me that his left hand could've drifted towards the door compartment without his really intending it to.
It is inconceivable to me that he would've been arrested on that basis. In all the times that I've thought about how things could've been so much worse, "being arrested because the cop at the scene assumed he was drunk and reaching for a gun" has never once crossed my mind, and I feel like it would rank just slightly ahead of "angry hobgoblin leaps out of destroyed highway barrier and steals wallet to compensate for the loss of his home" in plausibility. You know why? Because my dad is white.
He's fine. He will probably never drive again, and the car was totaled, but he got out with only minor injuries and no one else was involved in the accident. I'm not at all religious, but that made me understand believing in God more than I ever have, because when I think of all of the things that could've gone wrong if things had been slightly different--if people hadn't noticed and given him a wide berth, if the airbag had failed, etc.--the enormity of it short-circuits my tiny human brain. I guess I can throw "if he had been living in a society that was determined to think the worst of him based on his skin color" onto that pile, because there's people who were in a situation that was frighteningly similar, except they don't have their dad anymore, because he was black.
posted by kagredon at 8:39 PM on July 17, 2013 [16 favorites]
Oversharing time
A few months ago, my dad, who is only a few years older than Allen Hicks Sr. was, wrecked his car into a highway barrier when he had a seizure.
My father has been epileptic for most of his life, though for most of that time, medicine has worked very well to control it (which is why he had a license in the first place.) But I've still seen him post-seizure before. Even after he's regained consciousness, it takes a while for him to fully regain his ability to speak and move fluently. He told me that he woke up, with no idea what had happened and a police officer telling him the EMTs were on their way. It is entirely plausible to me that he would have trouble responding to requests to get to his license or to get out of the car, if he had just come to. It's entirely plausible to me that his left hand could've drifted towards the door compartment without his really intending it to.
It is inconceivable to me that he would've been arrested on that basis. In all the times that I've thought about how things could've been so much worse, "being arrested because the cop at the scene assumed he was drunk and reaching for a gun" has never once crossed my mind, and I feel like it would rank just slightly ahead of "angry hobgoblin leaps out of destroyed highway barrier and steals wallet to compensate for the loss of his home" in plausibility. You know why? Because my dad is white.
He's fine. He will probably never drive again, and the car was totaled, but he got out with only minor injuries and no one else was involved in the accident. I'm not at all religious, but that made me understand believing in God more than I ever have, because when I think of all of the things that could've gone wrong if things had been slightly different--if people hadn't noticed and given him a wide berth, if the airbag had failed, etc.--the enormity of it short-circuits my tiny human brain. I guess I can throw "if he had been living in a society that was determined to think the worst of him based on his skin color" onto that pile, because there's people who were in a situation that was frighteningly similar, except they don't have their dad anymore, because he was black.
posted by kagredon at 8:39 PM on July 17, 2013 [16 favorites]
If you guys have a moment, please email or otherwise contact the writer of that story (pjamison@tampabay.com), thank him for writing about that tragedy, and ask that the article title be changed from 'inmate' to 'Tampa Man', as he terms Coach Hicks in tweets about the story. Make the subject line "Change the title of the Allen Hicks article".
Bloody hell. Done and done.
posted by KathrynT at 8:44 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Bloody hell. Done and done.
posted by KathrynT at 8:44 PM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]
Done, cashman.
posted by scottymac at 9:55 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by scottymac at 9:55 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Done, cashman. A follow-up article observes that
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 10:10 PM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
Three deputies, four nurses and two Armor administrative employees were singled out by name for their questionable actions [but] no internal-affairs investigations or formal disciplinary measures were launched against the individual deputies who had a hand in Hicks' fateful jail stay. Instead, "more detailed training" in recognizing stroke symptoms was initiated for all jail employees.'Another consequence-free killing of a black man.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 10:10 PM on July 17, 2013 [6 favorites]
Christ almighty. Done, cashman.
posted by faineant at 10:33 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by faineant at 10:33 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
What I don't understand is how the vast majority of people in this thread, it seems, can't see how both men could have ended up feeling threatened.
Golly, maybe I'm just a super nervous coward but when I feel threatened I don't leave my vehicle to hunt for a strange man I suspect of being an evildoer in the dark. I guess that's the kind of thing people who risk their personal safety in the defense of their neighborhood do.
It must be my inconsistent moral values, but I don't see how a grown man can be simultaneously brave enough to disregard basic common sense as well as a gentle suggestion from a person loosely affiliated with the police (since every time we make the point that he was told to stop by the 911 dispatcher the argument that it doesn't count gets more vehement) to desist from following a stranger he thought was a burglar in the dark, AND ALSO that this man brave and dumb enough to chase the stranger in the dark was terrified for his life when at any point prior to 7:14 pm or so he could have escaped his self-inflicted terror of the evening by turning the hell around, getting in his car and going home.
posted by winna at 10:41 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
Golly, maybe I'm just a super nervous coward but when I feel threatened I don't leave my vehicle to hunt for a strange man I suspect of being an evildoer in the dark. I guess that's the kind of thing people who risk their personal safety in the defense of their neighborhood do.
It must be my inconsistent moral values, but I don't see how a grown man can be simultaneously brave enough to disregard basic common sense as well as a gentle suggestion from a person loosely affiliated with the police (since every time we make the point that he was told to stop by the 911 dispatcher the argument that it doesn't count gets more vehement) to desist from following a stranger he thought was a burglar in the dark, AND ALSO that this man brave and dumb enough to chase the stranger in the dark was terrified for his life when at any point prior to 7:14 pm or so he could have escaped his self-inflicted terror of the evening by turning the hell around, getting in his car and going home.
posted by winna at 10:41 PM on July 17, 2013 [10 favorites]
And done, cashman.
posted by winna at 10:53 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by winna at 10:53 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
kragedon
What exactly do you propose Trayvon Martin could have done to make George Zimmerman not feel threatened by his walking down the street?
I didn't say Zimmerman felt threatened then, I said he did nothing illegal during that time. And at the time of the confrontation, in mikelieman's scenario, if Zimmerman reached for his phone and Martin reacted physically, then at that point he would have felt threatened and things could understandably have escalated from there.
I don't think there's a "vast majority" think this at all. In fact, I see most people positing that the possibility could go either way.
zombieflanders, huh. I really don't see that, it seems like most people posting (and favoriting) believe this is an open-and-shut case of a miscarriage of justice, and I don't see how you can conclude that with certitude IF you believe there were escalating misunderstandings on both sides. An awful awful tragedy, yes, and an avoidable one definitely. But those do occur without a crime being involved. And I don't know that that's what happened here, I just think it's a reasonable possibility.
Note: I'll say again that I wish having a CCW were against the law.
mikelieman finds it impossible to see how any of Zimmerman's actions could be construed as reasonable. He's referred over and over to Zimmerman's "unlawfully detaining" Martin. I believe corb was asking what that would look like. But in the "stop there/fuck you" scenario, there still is no "unlawful detainment" going on.
Of course that scenario is not what mikelieman actually thinks happened. Upthread he said that Zimmerman held Martin prisoner at gunpoint, which would have been an altogether different situation. But there is no evidence for that, and actually it's contradicted by Rachel Jeantel's testimony and that of the other witnesses.
posted by torticat at 11:18 PM on July 17, 2013
What exactly do you propose Trayvon Martin could have done to make George Zimmerman not feel threatened by his walking down the street?
I didn't say Zimmerman felt threatened then, I said he did nothing illegal during that time. And at the time of the confrontation, in mikelieman's scenario, if Zimmerman reached for his phone and Martin reacted physically, then at that point he would have felt threatened and things could understandably have escalated from there.
I don't think there's a "vast majority" think this at all. In fact, I see most people positing that the possibility could go either way.
zombieflanders, huh. I really don't see that, it seems like most people posting (and favoriting) believe this is an open-and-shut case of a miscarriage of justice, and I don't see how you can conclude that with certitude IF you believe there were escalating misunderstandings on both sides. An awful awful tragedy, yes, and an avoidable one definitely. But those do occur without a crime being involved. And I don't know that that's what happened here, I just think it's a reasonable possibility.
Note: I'll say again that I wish having a CCW were against the law.
mikelieman finds it impossible to see how any of Zimmerman's actions could be construed as reasonable. He's referred over and over to Zimmerman's "unlawfully detaining" Martin. I believe corb was asking what that would look like. But in the "stop there/fuck you" scenario, there still is no "unlawful detainment" going on.
Of course that scenario is not what mikelieman actually thinks happened. Upthread he said that Zimmerman held Martin prisoner at gunpoint, which would have been an altogether different situation. But there is no evidence for that, and actually it's contradicted by Rachel Jeantel's testimony and that of the other witnesses.
posted by torticat at 11:18 PM on July 17, 2013
when I feel threatened I don't leave my vehicle to hunt for a strange man I suspect of being an evildoer in the dark.
Sigh. He thought Martin was a teen-aged burglar. I didn't suggest he felt threatened (I don't think he sounded scared on his 911 call) at any time until the fight.
posted by torticat at 11:24 PM on July 17, 2013
Sigh. He thought Martin was a teen-aged burglar. I didn't suggest he felt threatened (I don't think he sounded scared on his 911 call) at any time until the fight.
posted by torticat at 11:24 PM on July 17, 2013
Another email sent to Mr. Jamison.
posted by cairdeas at 11:56 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cairdeas at 11:56 PM on July 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
Because I also find it hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force.
My eyes rolled so hard that I was blinded.
Dude was investigated for domestic abuse, probably diddled his young cousin, punched out a cop, worked as a bouncer, packed heat, and imagined himself to be the neighbourhood superhero.
But it's "hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force."
Goddwmn ive gpne blimd agsin!!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:05 AM on July 18, 2013 [19 favorites]
My eyes rolled so hard that I was blinded.
Dude was investigated for domestic abuse, probably diddled his young cousin, punched out a cop, worked as a bouncer, packed heat, and imagined himself to be the neighbourhood superhero.
But it's "hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force."
Goddwmn ive gpne blimd agsin!!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:05 AM on July 18, 2013 [19 favorites]
Hey, guys, the "urge site members to all go do X" thing is actually not too cool here, not to mention that the writer of that story is probably not the person who wrote the headline, so harassing him personally is probably not the greatest way to approach things. At any rate, let's at least leave off all the individual comments saying that you emailed.
posted by taz at 12:41 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by taz at 12:41 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
If Zimmerman could have told the truth and still had a plausible claim of self-defense, he would have told the truth. Instead he concocted a story about being pinned on his back and punched in the face 25-30 times and having his head slammed against the pavement.
The physical evidence completely contradicts Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman's injuries aren't consistent with a beating like he claims he took. At least, they aren't in the EMT report from the night of the incident, which pointedly notes that Zimmerman only had a small laceration on the bridge of his nose and the mucous membrane normal. You don't get punched in the face 25-30 times and end up with no bloody nose or black eye. You don't get your head repeatedly slammed into pavement and end up with only a small cut with minor bleeding. His hands are completely clean and uninjured in the police photos. The back of his jacket and pants were clean and dry.
The total lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails or on the cuffs and sleeves of his hoodie is also pretty damning, as is Martin's autopsy report, which doesn't mention any defensive or offensive wounds to his hands. Not even abrasions on his knuckles.
It's not reasonable to believe the killing was in self-defense if Zimmerman can't tell the truth about the seconds immediately prior to the shooting.
Also, thanks for turning my complaining into action, cashman. Email sent.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:52 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
The physical evidence completely contradicts Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman's injuries aren't consistent with a beating like he claims he took. At least, they aren't in the EMT report from the night of the incident, which pointedly notes that Zimmerman only had a small laceration on the bridge of his nose and the mucous membrane normal. You don't get punched in the face 25-30 times and end up with no bloody nose or black eye. You don't get your head repeatedly slammed into pavement and end up with only a small cut with minor bleeding. His hands are completely clean and uninjured in the police photos. The back of his jacket and pants were clean and dry.
The total lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails or on the cuffs and sleeves of his hoodie is also pretty damning, as is Martin's autopsy report, which doesn't mention any defensive or offensive wounds to his hands. Not even abrasions on his knuckles.
It's not reasonable to believe the killing was in self-defense if Zimmerman can't tell the truth about the seconds immediately prior to the shooting.
Also, thanks for turning my complaining into action, cashman. Email sent.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:52 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
Sorry Taz.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:54 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:54 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Just as a journalism note: Reporters almost never write the headlines. That's part of copy editing.
posted by klangklangston at 12:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 12:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
"hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman would initiate physical force."
No, it's hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman was a member of Delta Force.
"You don't get punched in the face 25-30 times and end up with no bloody nose or black eye."
Certainly, if you're getting punched that much and don't get a black eye, etc., it's hard to claim you legitimately feared for your life.
posted by klangklangston at 12:59 AM on July 18, 2013
No, it's hard to create a scenario in which Zimmerman was a member of Delta Force.
"You don't get punched in the face 25-30 times and end up with no bloody nose or black eye."
Certainly, if you're getting punched that much and don't get a black eye, etc., it's hard to claim you legitimately feared for your life.
posted by klangklangston at 12:59 AM on July 18, 2013
Sigh. He thought Martin was a teen-aged burglar. I didn't suggest he felt threatened (I don't think he sounded scared on his 911 call) at any time until the fight.
Sigh. So he felt perfectly safe stalking a teenager he assumed was possibly a drugged criminal in the dark* up until a physical confrontation.
Let's see: we could already conclude from his behavior that he was impulsively stupid and completely lacking any common sense. We can add to that the conclusion that he's a bully.
He's such a prize human being I can see why we should all take pains to see the point of view of the man who shot and killed someone's child for walking down the street with a bag of skittles.
*Me, I was wholly unaware that teen-age burglars were harmless. Particularly drug-abusing teen-age burglars, based on Zimmerman's assessment of the young person. I'd've thought that a young drug-influenced burglar would be one of the most unpredictable and hence dangerous types of person, but I don't have the mystic wisdom doubtless granted to sacred warriors of the gated residential community upon receiving their concealed carry permit.
posted by winna at 1:52 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
Sigh. So he felt perfectly safe stalking a teenager he assumed was possibly a drugged criminal in the dark* up until a physical confrontation.
Let's see: we could already conclude from his behavior that he was impulsively stupid and completely lacking any common sense. We can add to that the conclusion that he's a bully.
He's such a prize human being I can see why we should all take pains to see the point of view of the man who shot and killed someone's child for walking down the street with a bag of skittles.
*Me, I was wholly unaware that teen-age burglars were harmless. Particularly drug-abusing teen-age burglars, based on Zimmerman's assessment of the young person. I'd've thought that a young drug-influenced burglar would be one of the most unpredictable and hence dangerous types of person, but I don't have the mystic wisdom doubtless granted to sacred warriors of the gated residential community upon receiving their concealed carry permit.
posted by winna at 1:52 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I'm all over the place with my alternative scenarios, ANY ONE OF THEM is founded on something better than Zimmerman's "The Negro Just Went Crazy" hypothesis, which I will reject out of hand.
Dude was investigated for domestic abuse, probably diddled his young cousin, punched out a cop, worked as a bouncer, packed heat, and imagined himself to be the neighbourhood superhero.
You forgot that George Zimmerman trained for over a year at a Mixed-Martial Arts fighting gym.
And if Zimmerman wasn't afraid of Trayvon Martin, why was he so afraid to disclose to the dispatcher his address? Unless Zimmerman is so crazy he thought the Black Panthers were tapping his phone.
posted by mikelieman at 4:49 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
Dude was investigated for domestic abuse, probably diddled his young cousin, punched out a cop, worked as a bouncer, packed heat, and imagined himself to be the neighbourhood superhero.
You forgot that George Zimmerman trained for over a year at a Mixed-Martial Arts fighting gym.
And if Zimmerman wasn't afraid of Trayvon Martin, why was he so afraid to disclose to the dispatcher his address? Unless Zimmerman is so crazy he thought the Black Panthers were tapping his phone.
posted by mikelieman at 4:49 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
He followed someone who was walking home with a bag of candy.
We know that from the benefit of hindsight - but just as people say that Zimmerman would have had no reason to know about Martin's history of drug use or burglary, so too would Zimmerman have had no reason to know that Martin was just walking home with a bag of candy. Nor would he have reason to know that the person half a head taller than him was under 18.
One of the jobs of law enforcement and those who are attempting to cover the gaps of law enforcement is to watch for suspicious activities, and try to curtail them. Not every person initially pegged as suspicious turns out to be a criminal, or turns out to be committing criminal activity at the time. In fact, I'd wager that the proportion of suspicious people investigated to people actually arrested or detained is very high.
Zimmerman saw Martin engaging in what seemed like suspicious activity - he noted Martin standing on the grass, not the sidewalk, and doing what appeared to look like casing houses. It's hard to say what Martin might have been doing. Maybe he was looking at the houses because they seemed interesting to him - maybe his mind was preoccupied. But his external behavior read as suspicious.
Zimmerman, the son of a judge, who wanted to be a cop, who had gone along on ride-alongs, likely had a far stronger trust of authority figures than Martin. In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted. Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
posted by corb at 6:41 AM on July 18, 2013
We know that from the benefit of hindsight - but just as people say that Zimmerman would have had no reason to know about Martin's history of drug use or burglary, so too would Zimmerman have had no reason to know that Martin was just walking home with a bag of candy. Nor would he have reason to know that the person half a head taller than him was under 18.
One of the jobs of law enforcement and those who are attempting to cover the gaps of law enforcement is to watch for suspicious activities, and try to curtail them. Not every person initially pegged as suspicious turns out to be a criminal, or turns out to be committing criminal activity at the time. In fact, I'd wager that the proportion of suspicious people investigated to people actually arrested or detained is very high.
Zimmerman saw Martin engaging in what seemed like suspicious activity - he noted Martin standing on the grass, not the sidewalk, and doing what appeared to look like casing houses. It's hard to say what Martin might have been doing. Maybe he was looking at the houses because they seemed interesting to him - maybe his mind was preoccupied. But his external behavior read as suspicious.
Zimmerman, the son of a judge, who wanted to be a cop, who had gone along on ride-alongs, likely had a far stronger trust of authority figures than Martin. In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted. Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
posted by corb at 6:41 AM on July 18, 2013
One of the jobs of law enforcement and those who are attempting to cover the gaps of law enforcement is to watch for suspicious activities, and try to curtail them.
This was not Zimmerman's job, nor is it the job of just anyone with a gun.
Zimmerman saw Martin engaging in what seemed like suspicious activity - he noted Martin standing on the grass, not the sidewalk, and doing what appeared to look like casing houses.
To someone who characterized it so that there was no possibility that would have allowed for anything but a crime in progress.
Zimmerman, the son of a judge, who wanted to be a cop, who had gone along on ride-alongs, likely had a far stronger trust of authority figures than Martin. In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted. Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
Oh, FFS.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
This was not Zimmerman's job, nor is it the job of just anyone with a gun.
Zimmerman saw Martin engaging in what seemed like suspicious activity - he noted Martin standing on the grass, not the sidewalk, and doing what appeared to look like casing houses.
To someone who characterized it so that there was no possibility that would have allowed for anything but a crime in progress.
Zimmerman, the son of a judge, who wanted to be a cop, who had gone along on ride-alongs, likely had a far stronger trust of authority figures than Martin. In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted. Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
Oh, FFS.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
And if Zimmerman wasn't afraid of Trayvon Martin, why was he so afraid to disclose to the dispatcher his address?
These are some pretty safe precautions, at least where I'm from. You never give your address out loud where other people can hear you. If you're on the subway, you don't talk about what stop you're getting off at before you get there. If you're walking home, you don't talk about how it's only X many blocks until you reach it, or how bad your locks are, or that you have money under the mattress. There's just a broad category of things you don't talk about in a public area, whether or not you are specifically afraid in that moment.
posted by corb at 6:49 AM on July 18, 2013
These are some pretty safe precautions, at least where I'm from. You never give your address out loud where other people can hear you. If you're on the subway, you don't talk about what stop you're getting off at before you get there. If you're walking home, you don't talk about how it's only X many blocks until you reach it, or how bad your locks are, or that you have money under the mattress. There's just a broad category of things you don't talk about in a public area, whether or not you are specifically afraid in that moment.
posted by corb at 6:49 AM on July 18, 2013
"if Zimmerman reached for his phone and Martin reacted physically, then at that point he would have felt threatened and things could understandably have escalated from there. "
threatened for his life? because someone 'reacted physically'?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:52 AM on July 18, 2013
threatened for his life? because someone 'reacted physically'?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:52 AM on July 18, 2013
These are some pretty safe precautions, at least where I'm from. You never give your address out loud where other people can hear you. If you're on the subway, you don't talk about what stop you're getting off at before you get there. If you're walking home, you don't talk about how it's only X many blocks until you reach it, or how bad your locks are, or that you have money under the mattress. There's just a broad category of things you don't talk about in a public area, whether or not you are specifically afraid in that moment.
Because you're afraid someone might hear you and follow you home, not because you're afraid you're getting wiretapped or something...
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:53 AM on July 18, 2013
Because you're afraid someone might hear you and follow you home, not because you're afraid you're getting wiretapped or something...
posted by DynamiteToast at 6:53 AM on July 18, 2013
so too would Zimmerman have had no reason to know that Martin was just walking home with a bag of candy.
Would Zimmerman have any reason not to believe that Martin was just walking home?
In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted.
So then Zimmerman unreasonably assumed Martin was doing something that wasn't innocent.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:55 AM on July 18, 2013
Would Zimmerman have any reason not to believe that Martin was just walking home?
In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted.
So then Zimmerman unreasonably assumed Martin was doing something that wasn't innocent.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:55 AM on July 18, 2013
I really have no idea what someone has to gain from logging onto MetaFilter and apologizing for George Zimmerman, an alleged child molester, assaulter of woman, and killer.
I really, really have no idea what you gain from this, or why you are doing it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:56 AM on July 18, 2013 [10 favorites]
I really, really have no idea what you gain from this, or why you are doing it.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:56 AM on July 18, 2013 [10 favorites]
These are some pretty safe precautions, at least where I'm from. You never give your address out loud where other people can hear you. If you're on the subway, you don't talk about what stop you're getting off at before you get there. If you're walking home, you don't talk about how it's only X many blocks until you reach it, or how bad your locks are, or that you have money under the mattress. There's just a broad category of things you don't talk about in a public area, whether or not you are specifically afraid in that moment.
To a dispatcher whom you called expressly to send the police to a specific location to apprehend a criminal engaging in a crime? Yet again, you have stretched disbelief well beyond its breaking point.
Also, FWIW, the maps of the neighborhood don't seem to show street-adjacent sidewalks, only ones behind the houses, which is not uncommon with housing developments. Walking on the grass to get out of the street would not be unusual, especially on a rainy night when it would be much more dangerous than normal.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
To a dispatcher whom you called expressly to send the police to a specific location to apprehend a criminal engaging in a crime? Yet again, you have stretched disbelief well beyond its breaking point.
Also, FWIW, the maps of the neighborhood don't seem to show street-adjacent sidewalks, only ones behind the houses, which is not uncommon with housing developments. Walking on the grass to get out of the street would not be unusual, especially on a rainy night when it would be much more dangerous than normal.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
corb: "If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him."
My weaselspeak-to-English translator turns this into "even if Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, he did it with good intentions." Anyone getting anything else with theirs?
corb, your continual pattern of stepping inside the head of George Zimmerman to find the best possible explanation for his motivations while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that Trayvon Martin could be motivated by anything but ill will is really getting tiresome. First you whitewashed Zimmerman's criminal past while exaggerating Martin's, now you're trying to exonerate Zimmerman in the court of public opinion after he's already been exonerated in a criminal court, because, to you, the fact that people might be mean to someone who shot and killed an unarmed teenager is the most important thing we should be worrying about.
George Zimmerman is going to be fine. He's been exonerated. He does not need your tendentious retroactive justifications of his actions on the night in question right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
My weaselspeak-to-English translator turns this into "even if Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, he did it with good intentions." Anyone getting anything else with theirs?
corb, your continual pattern of stepping inside the head of George Zimmerman to find the best possible explanation for his motivations while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that Trayvon Martin could be motivated by anything but ill will is really getting tiresome. First you whitewashed Zimmerman's criminal past while exaggerating Martin's, now you're trying to exonerate Zimmerman in the court of public opinion after he's already been exonerated in a criminal court, because, to you, the fact that people might be mean to someone who shot and killed an unarmed teenager is the most important thing we should be worrying about.
George Zimmerman is going to be fine. He's been exonerated. He does not need your tendentious retroactive justifications of his actions on the night in question right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
I grew up on a farm twenty miles from the nearest town. All my family have guns - I have guns, stored at my parents' house. I know about having to manage for yourself because the cops are too far away if something happens. I've lived in one of the worst neighborhoods in one of the most crime-ridden cities in this country.
I am not talking from a position of ignorance about patterns of behavior around 'self-policing' or gun ownership. From my experience Zimmerman behaved like a fool and an idiot.
Guns are tools, not safety blankets. Gun fetishism to me is sad because it's like being really into hammers, except hammer fetishists don't want to carry them everywhere they go and argue vociferously that any hammer-related fatalities are anyone's fault except the pathetic idiot who needs a hammer to feel safe or whole or whatever it is they feel.
That's why the idea that an adult getting out of their car to chase someone they thought was a burglar in a gated housing estate doesn't seem heroic or civic-spirited or roguishly gallant to me. It's the kind of thing the sort of person does who buys a shotgun that they can't shoulder and talks nonsense about their bug-out bag. A good chunk of them claim to be ex-Special Forces.
So I think of all the men and women in my family who are responsible gun owners and who would flay me alive for going out hunting trouble with a loaded gun and I get angry. I get angry that people are behaving as if his behavior was somehow justified by his claimed motive or that any responsible gun owner would take a gun out in those circumstances. Particularly since it's assumed we're all ignorant about guns or the mean streets of a subdivision. Oh no! The police are a whole three minutes away! How terrifying! There are burglaries going on! I mean, the endless parade of carjackings murders and rapes in my old neighborhood were nothing in comparison to someone getting a stereo taken! This little gated community was like Stalingrad during the siege - however did they stand the strain?
If Zimmerman had the sense god gave a goose he'd've stayed in his car and waited until the cops showed up. The kid didn't have anyone with him and wasn't carrying anything. If he wanted to be super fancy he could have cruised past his 'suspect' (oh no!) to the projected end point of the kid's path. If he wanted to, you know, find stuff out he could have rolled down his window and, like every busybody farmer I've ever known, talked to the kid without alarming him, then spent the next couple of days finding out which house the kid lived in if he had to be that much of a secret agent.
I don't object to his investigating behavior because I am incapable of understanding people who 'risk their personal safety in the defense of the neighborhood', although the idea that it was necessary makes me laugh. I object to his investigating behavior because I know how it's done and he was a damnfool and did it in the stupidest possible way.
posted by winna at 7:10 AM on July 18, 2013 [28 favorites]
I am not talking from a position of ignorance about patterns of behavior around 'self-policing' or gun ownership. From my experience Zimmerman behaved like a fool and an idiot.
Guns are tools, not safety blankets. Gun fetishism to me is sad because it's like being really into hammers, except hammer fetishists don't want to carry them everywhere they go and argue vociferously that any hammer-related fatalities are anyone's fault except the pathetic idiot who needs a hammer to feel safe or whole or whatever it is they feel.
That's why the idea that an adult getting out of their car to chase someone they thought was a burglar in a gated housing estate doesn't seem heroic or civic-spirited or roguishly gallant to me. It's the kind of thing the sort of person does who buys a shotgun that they can't shoulder and talks nonsense about their bug-out bag. A good chunk of them claim to be ex-Special Forces.
So I think of all the men and women in my family who are responsible gun owners and who would flay me alive for going out hunting trouble with a loaded gun and I get angry. I get angry that people are behaving as if his behavior was somehow justified by his claimed motive or that any responsible gun owner would take a gun out in those circumstances. Particularly since it's assumed we're all ignorant about guns or the mean streets of a subdivision. Oh no! The police are a whole three minutes away! How terrifying! There are burglaries going on! I mean, the endless parade of carjackings murders and rapes in my old neighborhood were nothing in comparison to someone getting a stereo taken! This little gated community was like Stalingrad during the siege - however did they stand the strain?
If Zimmerman had the sense god gave a goose he'd've stayed in his car and waited until the cops showed up. The kid didn't have anyone with him and wasn't carrying anything. If he wanted to be super fancy he could have cruised past his 'suspect' (oh no!) to the projected end point of the kid's path. If he wanted to, you know, find stuff out he could have rolled down his window and, like every busybody farmer I've ever known, talked to the kid without alarming him, then spent the next couple of days finding out which house the kid lived in if he had to be that much of a secret agent.
I don't object to his investigating behavior because I am incapable of understanding people who 'risk their personal safety in the defense of the neighborhood', although the idea that it was necessary makes me laugh. I object to his investigating behavior because I know how it's done and he was a damnfool and did it in the stupidest possible way.
posted by winna at 7:10 AM on July 18, 2013 [28 favorites]
In his probable modeling, if he had been following someone innocent, they would have behaved as he would behave - either not altering their behavior, or in turning around and perhaps calling the police or asking what the man wanted.
How on Earth would anyone know about Zimmerman's "probable modeling" or how Zimmerman "would behave" in any given situation? I don't even know how I would behave in any given situation.
Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
There is no "regional area" with a "set of expectations" for being followed in the dark by a random guy for no discernible reason. And, they're both from Florida so their "region" is the same. So, unless "regional area" is code for something else, which I'm guessing it is, this makes no sense.
Apologists gonna apologize, I guess.
posted by eunoia at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
How on Earth would anyone know about Zimmerman's "probable modeling" or how Zimmerman "would behave" in any given situation? I don't even know how I would behave in any given situation.
Zimmerman was looking for a set of behaviors that were socially shared behaviors in the regional area that he was a part of. If Zimmerman's beliefs on race played into his assessment, it was likely in a blindness as to how his behavior might be interpreted by someone with a far different set of expectations than him.
There is no "regional area" with a "set of expectations" for being followed in the dark by a random guy for no discernible reason. And, they're both from Florida so their "region" is the same. So, unless "regional area" is code for something else, which I'm guessing it is, this makes no sense.
Apologists gonna apologize, I guess.
posted by eunoia at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
your continual pattern of stepping inside the head of George Zimmerman to find the best possible explanation for his motivations while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that Trayvon Martin could be motivated by anything but ill will
Except that I do acknowledge Martin could be motivated by a lot more than ill will. To be clear: I don't think that Martin was acting from ill will. I think it's likely that he was feeling threatened, like he had no where to go to be safe and nothing to do except take matters into his own hands.
I can step into the heads of either: but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
Also, FWIW, the maps of the neighborhood don't seem to show street-adjacent sidewalks, only ones behind the houses, which is not uncommon with housing developments.
Weird - is this a suburbs thing? Have a link? It's not that I doubt you, I just haven't seen the maps. I seem to recall a post on Metafilter saying that some areas didn't have sidewalks or crossings, but they seemed to be mostly low-income areas.
posted by corb at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Except that I do acknowledge Martin could be motivated by a lot more than ill will. To be clear: I don't think that Martin was acting from ill will. I think it's likely that he was feeling threatened, like he had no where to go to be safe and nothing to do except take matters into his own hands.
I can step into the heads of either: but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
Also, FWIW, the maps of the neighborhood don't seem to show street-adjacent sidewalks, only ones behind the houses, which is not uncommon with housing developments.
Weird - is this a suburbs thing? Have a link? It's not that I doubt you, I just haven't seen the maps. I seem to recall a post on Metafilter saying that some areas didn't have sidewalks or crossings, but they seemed to be mostly low-income areas.
posted by corb at 7:12 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
corb,
Do you have any evidence that Martin took 'matters into his own hands.'?
Those hands that you talk about had only one minor abrasion on them. If he took matters into his own hands, wouldn't there be some physical evidence that he did so?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
Do you have any evidence that Martin took 'matters into his own hands.'?
Those hands that you talk about had only one minor abrasion on them. If he took matters into his own hands, wouldn't there be some physical evidence that he did so?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective
Oh please. This is nonsense.
posted by cashman at 7:22 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
Oh please. This is nonsense.
posted by cashman at 7:22 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
George Zimmerman does not need you or anyone else to "step into his head" because he is alive and can tell us about the contents of his own head himself.
Trayvon Martin is not. And George Zimmerman is the reason he is not.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
George Zimmerman does not need you or anyone else to "step into his head" because he is alive and can tell us about the contents of his own head himself.
Trayvon Martin is not. And George Zimmerman is the reason he is not.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
Zimmerman saw Martin engaging in what seemed like suspicious activity - he noted Martin standing on the grass, not the sidewalk
Ahh...so we have morphed the reason for shooting people from "Stand Your Ground" to "Standing On Some Ground" or even "Standing On Grass".
gotcha.
I knew there was a logical reason for this murder. This thread can be closed now.
posted by lampshade at 7:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
Ahh...so we have morphed the reason for shooting people from "Stand Your Ground" to "Standing On Some Ground" or even "Standing On Grass".
gotcha.
I knew there was a logical reason for this murder. This thread can be closed now.
posted by lampshade at 7:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
I can step into the heads of either: but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
I don't why its "more important" to step into the head of the guy who killed an innocent person. Can you articulate why this is so?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't why its "more important" to step into the head of the guy who killed an innocent person. Can you articulate why this is so?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
I can step into the heads of either: but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
Contrarianism is not a valid argument, to say nothing of the multiple instances of bias you've shown in pretty much every thread about this case.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
Contrarianism is not a valid argument, to say nothing of the multiple instances of bias you've shown in pretty much every thread about this case.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
corb: "Except that I do acknowledge Martin could be motivated by a lot more than ill will."
I'm glad you linked to that again, because even your one supposed example of him not being motivated by ill will, you gratuitously invoke Martin's use of pot and occasional proximity to illegal guns. Meanwhile, there's no mention of Zimmerman's assault on a cop, the restraining order, and his numerous other run-ins with the law.
I said you exhibited a pattern of looking at Zimmerman's motivations in the most charitable way possible, and that pattern continues unabated even in the one comment where you tried to get into Martin's head. In your mind, it's only fair to label one of them as a criminal, and that label is based on factors other than, you know, having a criminal record.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [13 favorites]
I'm glad you linked to that again, because even your one supposed example of him not being motivated by ill will, you gratuitously invoke Martin's use of pot and occasional proximity to illegal guns. Meanwhile, there's no mention of Zimmerman's assault on a cop, the restraining order, and his numerous other run-ins with the law.
I said you exhibited a pattern of looking at Zimmerman's motivations in the most charitable way possible, and that pattern continues unabated even in the one comment where you tried to get into Martin's head. In your mind, it's only fair to label one of them as a criminal, and that label is based on factors other than, you know, having a criminal record.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [13 favorites]
but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
Call me old-fashioned, but my sympathies tend to reside with the families of needlessly dead children.
posted by billiebee at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
Call me old-fashioned, but my sympathies tend to reside with the families of needlessly dead children.
posted by billiebee at 7:31 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective
If only you were willing to do so with an unbiased perspective. Your description doesn't sound like the mind of a person who molested his cousin for more than ten years, narrowly escaped prison for assaulting a police officer, and has made numerous racist statements and been accused of racism by his own family members.
If we are going to put the mind of an idealized boyscout into someone's head, why would we put it into the head of a child killing, child molesting vigilante instead of an innocent teenager who's future was taken away from him by this monster?
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:33 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
If only you were willing to do so with an unbiased perspective. Your description doesn't sound like the mind of a person who molested his cousin for more than ten years, narrowly escaped prison for assaulting a police officer, and has made numerous racist statements and been accused of racism by his own family members.
If we are going to put the mind of an idealized boyscout into someone's head, why would we put it into the head of a child killing, child molesting vigilante instead of an innocent teenager who's future was taken away from him by this monster?
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:33 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy.
I'm sorry for a dude who's so scared of black people that he finds a black kid in a hoodie so frightening he has to do something about it. Just not sorry enough not to call it racism--which is what being scared of a black person because (or partially because) they're black is--or think he doesn't deserve to go to jail for shooting a kid in a confrontation he provoked.
And certainly not as sorry as I am about the kid he put into the ground, and that kid's friends and family, and all the people who have to deal with folks like Zimmerman who are scared of them because of their skin color.
posted by immlass at 7:35 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
I'm sorry for a dude who's so scared of black people that he finds a black kid in a hoodie so frightening he has to do something about it. Just not sorry enough not to call it racism--which is what being scared of a black person because (or partially because) they're black is--or think he doesn't deserve to go to jail for shooting a kid in a confrontation he provoked.
And certainly not as sorry as I am about the kid he put into the ground, and that kid's friends and family, and all the people who have to deal with folks like Zimmerman who are scared of them because of their skin color.
posted by immlass at 7:35 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
Standing On Grass While Black.
I mean seriously, people can say it's not about race all day and twice on Sunday (and it's weird to say "he showed no racial bias before" - so?) but this would not have happened if he'd been a white kid or, most probably, an Asian kid.
posted by sweetkid at 7:36 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
I mean seriously, people can say it's not about race all day and twice on Sunday (and it's weird to say "he showed no racial bias before" - so?) but this would not have happened if he'd been a white kid or, most probably, an Asian kid.
posted by sweetkid at 7:36 AM on July 18, 2013 [14 favorites]
I swear I'm going to walk away because I don't get paid to post online, whatever I suspect other people may do.
The idea that someone who misused a gun deserves sympathy is ridiculous. If any of my uncles saw me behave without a scrupulous regard for gun safety they would have been on me like a ton of bricks. There should never be sympathy for fools with guns, because a fool with a gun inevitably winds up killing someone (as we see here!). In an area with a lot of hunters you know that person who gets shot by a careless fool may very well be yourself or a relative.
When guns are a tool, not a toy, you don't make excuses for fools because people who actually take them seriously know that they can kill people, like a chainsaw or a combine or any other powerful tool. But you don't see people making excuses for idiots who kill people with chainsaws, although usually that's because the person who generally gets killed when someone operates a chainsaw carelessly is the operator.
posted by winna at 7:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [26 favorites]
The idea that someone who misused a gun deserves sympathy is ridiculous. If any of my uncles saw me behave without a scrupulous regard for gun safety they would have been on me like a ton of bricks. There should never be sympathy for fools with guns, because a fool with a gun inevitably winds up killing someone (as we see here!). In an area with a lot of hunters you know that person who gets shot by a careless fool may very well be yourself or a relative.
When guns are a tool, not a toy, you don't make excuses for fools because people who actually take them seriously know that they can kill people, like a chainsaw or a combine or any other powerful tool. But you don't see people making excuses for idiots who kill people with chainsaws, although usually that's because the person who generally gets killed when someone operates a chainsaw carelessly is the operator.
posted by winna at 7:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [26 favorites]
One of the many upsettting things about this whole case has been the oft repeated comment across the internet, "why are you using a picture of an 11 year old [instead of the 17 year old thug Zimmerman followed and killed]?" (example).
((a) the photograph of Trayvon in the red Hollister t-shirt was taken 5 months before his murder, when he was 16 and (b) how dare they try and dictate which photograph Trayvon's parents choose to release to honour their dead son.)
And I wonder if seeing the reality of what Zimmerman did, killed a much-loved teenage child because [insert your theory here], makes these people go online and try and force their reality on others "he couldn't have been a sweet looking kid like that, surely? Let's put him in a hoodie and darken his skin because that's what we're all afraid of, no?"
As I listened to Juror B37 yesterday talking with Anderson Cooper I think I know why Zimmerman was acquitted - it's not due to the rabid hatred of those like the picture commenters; it's because she and presumably her fellow jurors identified far more readily with Zimmerman for all his "faults" (hispanic, overweight, etc.) than with 17 year old Trayvon because he's black. "One of them". "Those people". Those people who rob houses. Those people who threaten our world and who we need protection from.
posted by humph at 7:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
((a) the photograph of Trayvon in the red Hollister t-shirt was taken 5 months before his murder, when he was 16 and (b) how dare they try and dictate which photograph Trayvon's parents choose to release to honour their dead son.)
And I wonder if seeing the reality of what Zimmerman did, killed a much-loved teenage child because [insert your theory here], makes these people go online and try and force their reality on others "he couldn't have been a sweet looking kid like that, surely? Let's put him in a hoodie and darken his skin because that's what we're all afraid of, no?"
As I listened to Juror B37 yesterday talking with Anderson Cooper I think I know why Zimmerman was acquitted - it's not due to the rabid hatred of those like the picture commenters; it's because she and presumably her fellow jurors identified far more readily with Zimmerman for all his "faults" (hispanic, overweight, etc.) than with 17 year old Trayvon because he's black. "One of them". "Those people". Those people who rob houses. Those people who threaten our world and who we need protection from.
posted by humph at 7:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
Mod note: I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because
Please keep in mind that these sorts of comments are, at the end of 4000+ comments about this issue over the past few days that have approached this topic from multiple different angles, indistinguishable from trolling. If you are not trolling we need you to be more actively aware of how your comments are likely to be perceived within the context of this community and look like you are making active steps to try to have a discussion, not just soapbox your own beliefs. MeTa is an option for anyone who wants it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
Please keep in mind that these sorts of comments are, at the end of 4000+ comments about this issue over the past few days that have approached this topic from multiple different angles, indistinguishable from trolling. If you are not trolling we need you to be more actively aware of how your comments are likely to be perceived within the context of this community and look like you are making active steps to try to have a discussion, not just soapbox your own beliefs. MeTa is an option for anyone who wants it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
Some four-letter words are just itching to plug someone with their CCW, and Zimmerman is their talisman, their spirit animal.
A couple decades ago, they'd have idolized Bernie Goetz. They are angry people who want vengeance against a world that hurt them, they pack heat, and they want a reason to kill someone.
Zimmerman provides a model for how to get away with killing a random innocent when they finally snap… and how to build an internal mental framework that protects against feeling guilty, responsible, or sorry for having pulled the trigger.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:15 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
A couple decades ago, they'd have idolized Bernie Goetz. They are angry people who want vengeance against a world that hurt them, they pack heat, and they want a reason to kill someone.
Zimmerman provides a model for how to get away with killing a random innocent when they finally snap… and how to build an internal mental framework that protects against feeling guilty, responsible, or sorry for having pulled the trigger.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:15 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
On the Decriminalization of Private Violence
[A]s private violence becomes more widespread, it will become increasingly organized, if still on private lines. Fantasists of the libertarian right and the anarchist left alike are prey to the same delusion, that is, that the absence of the state will lead to a paradise for individuals. In fact the absence of the state leads to the tyranny of smaller scale private organizations and the disempowerment of the individual. In places like medieval Europe, Sicily or Afghanistan, unaffiliated individuals are easy prey and quickly seek the protection of local strongmen. That protection is not free, in fact it is usually very expensive. There is no reason to think the same will not happen when the state voluntarily stops punishing private violence. In fact one can anticipate the full spectrum of responses to anarchy that have been displayed in other settings. The rich will employ private mercenary forces to provide security, as their forebears have done since time immemorial. The poor will join gangs that offer protection in exchange for loyalty and military service. The middle class will form vigilante organizations based on localities. Clans or extended families may return to prominence, as kinship ties form an excellent basis for the management of small-scale violence.posted by zombieflanders at 8:30 AM on July 18, 2013 [10 favorites]
What this will look like in the context of a state that could but doesn’t prevent violence is uncertain. Perhaps the state will step in to curb larger scale organizations. However, it seems unlikely that the armed individual will have much ability to defend him or herself. Instead, predation by one organization will be kept in check only by an equally strong opposing organization. Gang warfare in urban areas is a harbinger, but street gangs will find the terrain contested not just by other gangs, but by vigilante groups, clans and the private security firms of the rich. Retaliatory killing will be the primary deterrent to murder, and indeed it will be all quite justifiable as self-defense because the organizations will pose real and imminent threats to each other. Hobbes thought an absolute sovereign preferable to such a condition. A well-functioning democracy that outlaws murder would be better than either.
Apologists gonna apologize, I guess.
Apologists gonna appall.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
Apologists gonna appall.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
When I got home from work yesterday, there were four teenagers sitting on my stoop. Two boys, two girls, all black.
They were smoking weed.
As I got closer and it was clear that I was going to be climbing the steps they were sitting on, they kind of shuffled apart so there was room for me. I said "Hey." A couple of them said "Hey."
I said, "If you guys are going to sit here, would you mind smoking at the edge of the sidewalk? Because otherwise the smoke goes right up the stairs into my flat."
The one holding the blunt leapt to his feet and kind of hopped to the curb. "Sorry," he said. "I hate smoke inside my house, too."
I said, "Thanks. Y'all have a good evening."
"You too," they said.
The end.
posted by rtha at 9:15 AM on July 18, 2013 [24 favorites]
They were smoking weed.
As I got closer and it was clear that I was going to be climbing the steps they were sitting on, they kind of shuffled apart so there was room for me. I said "Hey." A couple of them said "Hey."
I said, "If you guys are going to sit here, would you mind smoking at the edge of the sidewalk? Because otherwise the smoke goes right up the stairs into my flat."
The one holding the blunt leapt to his feet and kind of hopped to the curb. "Sorry," he said. "I hate smoke inside my house, too."
I said, "Thanks. Y'all have a good evening."
"You too," they said.
The end.
posted by rtha at 9:15 AM on July 18, 2013 [24 favorites]
The end.
They didn't offer to share? When will we achieve racial harmony?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:24 AM on July 18, 2013 [19 favorites]
They didn't offer to share? When will we achieve racial harmony?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:24 AM on July 18, 2013 [19 favorites]
THEY never offer to share.
You know, them.
Teenagers.
posted by kagredon at 9:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
You know, them.
Teenagers.
posted by kagredon at 9:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
fucking punks
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
They didn't offer to share? When will we achieve racial harmony?!
One time, a couple people smoking weed on my stoop did offer to share! (If I remember right, one was Latino and one was black.) I had to decline though because I was only stopping home to feed cats before getting back in the car to go someplace.
These kids though...well, yeah. Kids!
(Why yes, people seem to smoke weed pretty often on our stoop. I suppose it's because our house is one of the very few on the block that has a stoop that isn't blocked off by a gate.)
posted by rtha at 9:30 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
One time, a couple people smoking weed on my stoop did offer to share! (If I remember right, one was Latino and one was black.) I had to decline though because I was only stopping home to feed cats before getting back in the car to go someplace.
These kids though...well, yeah. Kids!
(Why yes, people seem to smoke weed pretty often on our stoop. I suppose it's because our house is one of the very few on the block that has a stoop that isn't blocked off by a gate.)
posted by rtha at 9:30 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't why its "more important" to step into the head of the guy who killed an innocent person. Can you articulate why this is so?
I understand how this is a really emotional issue for many MeFites, and I think that this framing is a part of it. Many MeFites seem to be focusing on the portions of the case and framing that seem likely to create anger - not necessarily out of bad intent but just because it's hard to avoid emotional tugging. I think I myself also have emotional tugging, just in different places and on different words/framing.
Because yes - if all of these things were true and there was no reason to shoot Martin and someone just shot him Just Because He Was a Racist, then that would be really, really enraging. And I think it also ties into the Just World thing - where because something that seems on the surface so horrible happened, there's a strong desire to make sense of it all. The narrative of Zimmerman as a rampant racist, out on the prowl, really fits into this. It's easy to say - ah-ha, that's what happened. It gives not only a clear view of the issue, but also a clear path to make things better - go after the bad person, the befouler of our society, the person who has entered our society and made things bad.
But I think those framings are more for effect than accurate - and they are used in this case to compound the image of unevenness.
For example: Martin is often referred to (particularly in this conversation) by the words black (312 x this thread), kid (151x this thread), teen (77x this thread), innocent (66 x this thread), child (40x this thread), and unarmed (23x this thread).
These are powerful words when they are invoked, and they affect the emotional response, particularly in combination, whether or not they are appropriate to invoke in that combination.
When we refer to Martin as black, we are implicitly saying that there is a racial component to the crime. This is why many major newspapers do not identify race when they report crimes or victimized individuals unless it is necessary to find someone who may harm again - because they know that the perception of race affects how people interpret things, and makes them more likely to assume there is a racial component to the crime. Thus, by identifying him in that way, our cognitive biases start flowing -whether or not we mean to. The difference between "Neighborhood watchman shoots youth" and "Neighborhood watchman shoots black youth" is vast - in part because of that history of racism and oppression. It becomes a new entry in a vast sea of entries, rather than a unique incident.
Likewise, when we refer to Martin as a "teen" or a "child" or a "kid", we are invoking his youth as a defense. We are saying that there is no reason why someone who was 17 years old should have died - that they had their whole life ahead of him. But we are also making a plea for someone on the borderline between adolescence and adulthood to be considered on one particular end of that barrier. We are arguing that no matter how close he was to 18, that we should consider him as a child, a kid, a teen, someone who is deserving of our protection rather than someone who is responsible for their own actions.
And we refer to Martin as "innocent", we are invoking a lot of imagery - of martyrdom, of injustice. When innocents die or are harmed, it is uniformly looked at as far more of a tragedy as when any one else does. This is why the process of character assassination exists - to mitigate the powerful impact of an assault on an innocent.
But at the same time, despite how powerful the draw of these words are, they are not all appropriate. If Martin initiated the assault, he is hardly "innocent." His actions may be understandable, maybe even righteous, depending on who is looking at them - but he sacrifices the appeal to martyrdom. And by referring to a 17 year old as a "child", we are ignoring the many 17 year olds that are, in fact, charged as adults for often horrific crimes. We are using the emotional resonance in the Martin case to amply the sense of wrongness, the sense of injustice, but we are not stopping to ask ourselves critically: why are we doing this? And who does it serve?
The answer, in my view, is that it serves the state, and actually serves the process of unconscious racism, profiling, and bias.
That's counter-intuitive. Why so? How can that argument possibly be made? It's a real question, because it's so shocking on the outset, to argue that the demonizing of Zimmerman actually acts against making things better.
But here's the thing the things that many people find upsetting, the real racial problems in the case, do not come from Zimmerman. They come from the police. (broken for not large text dump)
posted by corb at 9:34 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
I understand how this is a really emotional issue for many MeFites, and I think that this framing is a part of it. Many MeFites seem to be focusing on the portions of the case and framing that seem likely to create anger - not necessarily out of bad intent but just because it's hard to avoid emotional tugging. I think I myself also have emotional tugging, just in different places and on different words/framing.
Because yes - if all of these things were true and there was no reason to shoot Martin and someone just shot him Just Because He Was a Racist, then that would be really, really enraging. And I think it also ties into the Just World thing - where because something that seems on the surface so horrible happened, there's a strong desire to make sense of it all. The narrative of Zimmerman as a rampant racist, out on the prowl, really fits into this. It's easy to say - ah-ha, that's what happened. It gives not only a clear view of the issue, but also a clear path to make things better - go after the bad person, the befouler of our society, the person who has entered our society and made things bad.
But I think those framings are more for effect than accurate - and they are used in this case to compound the image of unevenness.
For example: Martin is often referred to (particularly in this conversation) by the words black (312 x this thread), kid (151x this thread), teen (77x this thread), innocent (66 x this thread), child (40x this thread), and unarmed (23x this thread).
These are powerful words when they are invoked, and they affect the emotional response, particularly in combination, whether or not they are appropriate to invoke in that combination.
When we refer to Martin as black, we are implicitly saying that there is a racial component to the crime. This is why many major newspapers do not identify race when they report crimes or victimized individuals unless it is necessary to find someone who may harm again - because they know that the perception of race affects how people interpret things, and makes them more likely to assume there is a racial component to the crime. Thus, by identifying him in that way, our cognitive biases start flowing -whether or not we mean to. The difference between "Neighborhood watchman shoots youth" and "Neighborhood watchman shoots black youth" is vast - in part because of that history of racism and oppression. It becomes a new entry in a vast sea of entries, rather than a unique incident.
Likewise, when we refer to Martin as a "teen" or a "child" or a "kid", we are invoking his youth as a defense. We are saying that there is no reason why someone who was 17 years old should have died - that they had their whole life ahead of him. But we are also making a plea for someone on the borderline between adolescence and adulthood to be considered on one particular end of that barrier. We are arguing that no matter how close he was to 18, that we should consider him as a child, a kid, a teen, someone who is deserving of our protection rather than someone who is responsible for their own actions.
And we refer to Martin as "innocent", we are invoking a lot of imagery - of martyrdom, of injustice. When innocents die or are harmed, it is uniformly looked at as far more of a tragedy as when any one else does. This is why the process of character assassination exists - to mitigate the powerful impact of an assault on an innocent.
But at the same time, despite how powerful the draw of these words are, they are not all appropriate. If Martin initiated the assault, he is hardly "innocent." His actions may be understandable, maybe even righteous, depending on who is looking at them - but he sacrifices the appeal to martyrdom. And by referring to a 17 year old as a "child", we are ignoring the many 17 year olds that are, in fact, charged as adults for often horrific crimes. We are using the emotional resonance in the Martin case to amply the sense of wrongness, the sense of injustice, but we are not stopping to ask ourselves critically: why are we doing this? And who does it serve?
The answer, in my view, is that it serves the state, and actually serves the process of unconscious racism, profiling, and bias.
That's counter-intuitive. Why so? How can that argument possibly be made? It's a real question, because it's so shocking on the outset, to argue that the demonizing of Zimmerman actually acts against making things better.
But here's the thing the things that many people find upsetting, the real racial problems in the case, do not come from Zimmerman. They come from the police. (broken for not large text dump)
posted by corb at 9:34 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
But here's the thing the things that many people find upsetting, the real racial problems in the case, do not come from Zimmerman. They come from the police
but the bullet did.
posted by lampshade at 9:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [11 favorites]
but the bullet did.
posted by lampshade at 9:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [11 favorites]
It must be really weird living in your head
posted by angrycat at 9:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [16 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 9:38 AM on July 18, 2013 [16 favorites]
yea I stopped at 'really emotional topic for mefites.' That's so patronizing.
posted by sweetkid at 9:39 AM on July 18, 2013 [16 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 9:39 AM on July 18, 2013 [16 favorites]
this is sorta like reading the Lincoln Douglas debates and being like, 'wow, there's really a polite way to say poisonous shit'
posted by angrycat at 9:45 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 9:45 AM on July 18, 2013 [6 favorites]
Someone way upthread talked about the othering going on with many media descriptions of the jury. If there were any doubt about it, here's the latest thing they have to tell us about the jurors: Zimmerman jury sequestration included steaks and pedicures.
I've followed more than a few high profile cases in the past few years, and I cannot recall descriptions of the activities the jurors engaged in while they were sequestered, nor do I recall seeing prominent mentions of the price tag associated with the sequestration. Why do it here, for this jury, which are we frequently reminded was ALL WOMEN YOU GUYS!
It's as though there were some vested interest in making us very angry at the jurors and not the prosecution or the police department in Sanford. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat, cuz I'm starting to wonder if we're all being played off against each other while the folks uptop laugh at us....
posted by lord_wolf at 9:49 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
I've followed more than a few high profile cases in the past few years, and I cannot recall descriptions of the activities the jurors engaged in while they were sequestered, nor do I recall seeing prominent mentions of the price tag associated with the sequestration. Why do it here, for this jury, which are we frequently reminded was ALL WOMEN YOU GUYS!
It's as though there were some vested interest in making us very angry at the jurors and not the prosecution or the police department in Sanford. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat, cuz I'm starting to wonder if we're all being played off against each other while the folks uptop laugh at us....
posted by lord_wolf at 9:49 AM on July 18, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's as though there were some vested interest in making us very angry at the jurors and not the prosecution or the police department in Sanford.
I think they are creating anger at the gub'ment (the Justice Department) for forcing Floridian tax payers to fund a court case when they weren't even going to prosecute in the first place.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:54 AM on July 18, 2013
I think they are creating anger at the gub'ment (the Justice Department) for forcing Floridian tax payers to fund a court case when they weren't even going to prosecute in the first place.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:54 AM on July 18, 2013
Stop. Just...stop.
This isn't even concern trolling at this point. It's blaming everyone for engaging in what you've spent the entire thread doing. It's conflation of so much stuff into a mishmash that it's unrecognizable. It's the continued ignorance of context and history that has been your MO in this thread and many others. It's the victim-blaming and the attempts to play the victim of some conspiracy of people unraveling arguments that were hanging by a snapped thread in the first place. It's taking on the mantle of groups where virtually no other members of those groups agree with you. It's the vilification of people because they can prove that something you want to work doesn't actually do so. And worst of all, it's how you interact here.
So, please...just stop.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [21 favorites]
This isn't even concern trolling at this point. It's blaming everyone for engaging in what you've spent the entire thread doing. It's conflation of so much stuff into a mishmash that it's unrecognizable. It's the continued ignorance of context and history that has been your MO in this thread and many others. It's the victim-blaming and the attempts to play the victim of some conspiracy of people unraveling arguments that were hanging by a snapped thread in the first place. It's taking on the mantle of groups where virtually no other members of those groups agree with you. It's the vilification of people because they can prove that something you want to work doesn't actually do so. And worst of all, it's how you interact here.
So, please...just stop.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [21 favorites]
"We know that from the benefit of hindsight - but just as people say that Zimmerman would have had no reason to know about Martin's history of drug use or burglary, so too would Zimmerman have had no reason to know that Martin was just walking home with a bag of candy. Nor would he have reason to know that the person half a head taller than him was under 18. "
That's bullshit. It ignores that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal based on the fact that he was a black guy. That's it. All the "Looked like a burglar" is post-facto justification for the fact that Zimmerman followed an innocent kid because he assumed he was guilty of something.
Without any reason to know whether the guy had Skittles or was casing houses, he assumed the worst and killed an innocent kid over it.
"but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy. "
There's a common mental fallacy — especially around racism and sexism — to place ourselves in the shoes of someone similar and then reason through our own reactions and ascribe that reasoning to the person accused of racism or sexism, like, "But I'm like him, and I'm sure that if I did something like that it would be a reasonable mistake!"
It is apologizing. And you should be glad that people here are calling it out as such, because it should help you realize that it's the same thing that happens when you're upset about sexism and other people are minimizing it by inventing plausible rationales — it's insulting, and assumes that the generalized environment of racism and sexism is really just misunderstandings outside of a few bad actors. It's not. There is pervasive sexism and racism in America, and you're enabling it rather than confronting it because of your desire to identify with a cowboy sub-rent-a-cop who killed a black teen. I hope you can understand why that's offensive, especially to people who see you as dissembling to justify a murder of someone just like them or their son.
posted by klangklangston at 9:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [28 favorites]
That's bullshit. It ignores that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal based on the fact that he was a black guy. That's it. All the "Looked like a burglar" is post-facto justification for the fact that Zimmerman followed an innocent kid because he assumed he was guilty of something.
Without any reason to know whether the guy had Skittles or was casing houses, he assumed the worst and killed an innocent kid over it.
"but I think it's more important to step into the head of Zimmerman because so few people seem willing to do so with an unbiased perspective, or trying to find elements of sympathy. "
There's a common mental fallacy — especially around racism and sexism — to place ourselves in the shoes of someone similar and then reason through our own reactions and ascribe that reasoning to the person accused of racism or sexism, like, "But I'm like him, and I'm sure that if I did something like that it would be a reasonable mistake!"
It is apologizing. And you should be glad that people here are calling it out as such, because it should help you realize that it's the same thing that happens when you're upset about sexism and other people are minimizing it by inventing plausible rationales — it's insulting, and assumes that the generalized environment of racism and sexism is really just misunderstandings outside of a few bad actors. It's not. There is pervasive sexism and racism in America, and you're enabling it rather than confronting it because of your desire to identify with a cowboy sub-rent-a-cop who killed a black teen. I hope you can understand why that's offensive, especially to people who see you as dissembling to justify a murder of someone just like them or their son.
posted by klangklangston at 9:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [28 favorites]
a really emotional issue for many MeFites
Your posts in this thread have been far more emotional and had far more basic errors of logic and biases of thought than any of those produced by people arguing with you.
I must admit, I am really impressed by zombieflanders and others who have debated corb in this thread. Not because I like emotionally painful arguments, but because too often foul, insane and debased rubbish is allowed to stand, uncorrected, simply because the person spewing it is so persistent in her malice, so self-congratulatory in her delusions, that saner and better minds are exhausted by it and ultimately wander off in dismay.
It takes courage to keep standing up to demented and dishonest rubbish. Good for you all. This is a terrible event; even if someone despicable insists on doing the internet equivalent of defacing a gravestone, it is good to see that people will keep repairing that gravestone, regardless.
posted by lucien_reeve at 9:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [22 favorites]
Your posts in this thread have been far more emotional and had far more basic errors of logic and biases of thought than any of those produced by people arguing with you.
I must admit, I am really impressed by zombieflanders and others who have debated corb in this thread. Not because I like emotionally painful arguments, but because too often foul, insane and debased rubbish is allowed to stand, uncorrected, simply because the person spewing it is so persistent in her malice, so self-congratulatory in her delusions, that saner and better minds are exhausted by it and ultimately wander off in dismay.
It takes courage to keep standing up to demented and dishonest rubbish. Good for you all. This is a terrible event; even if someone despicable insists on doing the internet equivalent of defacing a gravestone, it is good to see that people will keep repairing that gravestone, regardless.
posted by lucien_reeve at 9:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [22 favorites]
corb: " Thus, by identifying him in that way, our cognitive biases start flowing -whether or not we mean to. The difference between "Neighborhood watchman shoots youth" and "Neighborhood watchman shoots black youth" is vast - in part because of that history of racism and oppression. It becomes a new entry in a vast sea of entries, rather than a unique incident.
"
This might be convincing were it not coming from someone who's been so adamant about making sure we identify George Zimmerman as Hispanic.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:58 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
"
This might be convincing were it not coming from someone who's been so adamant about making sure we identify George Zimmerman as Hispanic.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:58 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
The real problem comes from angry, violent cowboys, packing heat and actively seeking trouble, posing as (unauthorized) neighborhood watch heroes, desperately wishing they had a badge, frustrated by rejection from the cop brotherhood, frustrated by their failure to impress, frustrated by their personal history, and goddamn determined to change all that, to prove their worth, to come out on top.
Zimmerman is a fucked-up sick man, and so is everyone that "gets inside his head" and finds only goodness and light in his soul.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
Zimmerman is a fucked-up sick man, and so is everyone that "gets inside his head" and finds only goodness and light in his soul.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
As cable networks nose-dive, it's all Zimmerman, all of the time
posted by homunculus at 10:04 AM on July 18, 2013
posted by homunculus at 10:04 AM on July 18, 2013
When we refer to Martin as black, we are implicitly saying that there is a racial component to the crime.
No, we're referring to the fact of Martin's race. If there is a cognitive bias and emotional reaction going on here, it's not limited to people who are outraged by the idea that a vigilante had the right to stalk and kill a seventeen-year-old because he was black and wearing a hoodie and black youths wearing hoodies are scary.
posted by immlass at 10:09 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
No, we're referring to the fact of Martin's race. If there is a cognitive bias and emotional reaction going on here, it's not limited to people who are outraged by the idea that a vigilante had the right to stalk and kill a seventeen-year-old because he was black and wearing a hoodie and black youths wearing hoodies are scary.
posted by immlass at 10:09 AM on July 18, 2013 [5 favorites]
(cont)
Why are the police the problem, and why is focusing on Zimmerman a distraction? Well, again, it's important to look at the case.
Zimmerman did, indeed, shoot Martin. He may or may not have been justified in doing so - he certainly felt in fear for his life, but it is likely that Martin would not actually have beaten him to death. From that period, what is he required to do for due diligence? To talk to the police when they come, given them his full cooperation, and help in any way necessitated. Zimmerman is not required to perform CPR, even if we think he probably should have.
It is the police who have the burden of due diligence. Yet as kathrynt and BrandonBlatcher noted above, the police did not follow their due diligence. They released Zimmerman, which can be justifiable - if they do not yet have enough evidence to decide to charge or not charge. But what is not justifiable is the failure to gather evidence. Indeed, the police should have gathered evidence. They should have photographed Zimmerman at the scene and insisted he be medically examined. And they absolutely should have given CPR - they, unlike Zimmerman, were charged with protecting all citizens. Even if they thought Martin was a criminal, they should have performed CPR immediately. Why did they not do so? And why didn't they question Zimmerman's finding of Martin suspicious? Well, at this point it's important to remember Zimmerman's ride-alongs with the police. He wanted to be a cop - is it strange to think that maybe he could have gotten his ideas of what constitutes suspicious behavior from the people he was trying to emulate?
It is thus the police who have failed us societally - the police who our taxes fund, the police who have a contract with the people in order to provide them protection - all of them protection.
But it is also the police who have a history of racism - both in that district specifically, and more broadly in general. Our Enemies In Blue: Police And Power In America notes that more black men were killed in the last 30 years of policing than in all the years of lynching combined.
There is pervasive sexism and racism in America, and you're enabling it rather than confronting it because of your desire to identify with a cowboy sub-rent-a-cop who killed a black teen. I hope you can understand why that's offensive, especially to people who see you as dissembling to justify a murder of someone just like them or their son.
Responded offline so as not to get meta in the thread.
posted by corb at 10:11 AM on July 18, 2013
Why are the police the problem, and why is focusing on Zimmerman a distraction? Well, again, it's important to look at the case.
Zimmerman did, indeed, shoot Martin. He may or may not have been justified in doing so - he certainly felt in fear for his life, but it is likely that Martin would not actually have beaten him to death. From that period, what is he required to do for due diligence? To talk to the police when they come, given them his full cooperation, and help in any way necessitated. Zimmerman is not required to perform CPR, even if we think he probably should have.
It is the police who have the burden of due diligence. Yet as kathrynt and BrandonBlatcher noted above, the police did not follow their due diligence. They released Zimmerman, which can be justifiable - if they do not yet have enough evidence to decide to charge or not charge. But what is not justifiable is the failure to gather evidence. Indeed, the police should have gathered evidence. They should have photographed Zimmerman at the scene and insisted he be medically examined. And they absolutely should have given CPR - they, unlike Zimmerman, were charged with protecting all citizens. Even if they thought Martin was a criminal, they should have performed CPR immediately. Why did they not do so? And why didn't they question Zimmerman's finding of Martin suspicious? Well, at this point it's important to remember Zimmerman's ride-alongs with the police. He wanted to be a cop - is it strange to think that maybe he could have gotten his ideas of what constitutes suspicious behavior from the people he was trying to emulate?
It is thus the police who have failed us societally - the police who our taxes fund, the police who have a contract with the people in order to provide them protection - all of them protection.
But it is also the police who have a history of racism - both in that district specifically, and more broadly in general. Our Enemies In Blue: Police And Power In America notes that more black men were killed in the last 30 years of policing than in all the years of lynching combined.
There is pervasive sexism and racism in America, and you're enabling it rather than confronting it because of your desire to identify with a cowboy sub-rent-a-cop who killed a black teen. I hope you can understand why that's offensive, especially to people who see you as dissembling to justify a murder of someone just like them or their son.
Responded offline so as not to get meta in the thread.
posted by corb at 10:11 AM on July 18, 2013
it is true that at this point all I am motivated to do is start hurling crap, metaphorically, so yeah, thanks zombieflanders and klangklangston and others who are putting in the work
posted by angrycat at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
I still don't understand why it is you want to persuade us to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt when that is exactly what he got from the legal system.
I also still don't understand why you are utterly incapable of putting yourself in Martin's shoes.
posted by rtha at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
I also still don't understand why you are utterly incapable of putting yourself in Martin's shoes.
posted by rtha at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why are the police the problem, and why is focusing on Zimmerman a distraction? Well, again, it's important to look at the case.
How many comments have you posted in this thread "focusing on Zimmerman"? Why are you suddenly jumping onto this new thread, completely unrelated to the ones people are engaging you on?
posted by kagredon at 10:22 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
How many comments have you posted in this thread "focusing on Zimmerman"? Why are you suddenly jumping onto this new thread, completely unrelated to the ones people are engaging you on?
posted by kagredon at 10:22 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mod note: (cont)
Breaking up your wall-of-text comment into two parts spaced 30 minutes apart is the exact opposite of understanding the context in which your comments are occurring. Please either go to MetaTalk or communicate with people on this website as if you are one of thousands of members here, not as if it is your own website.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:23 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
Breaking up your wall-of-text comment into two parts spaced 30 minutes apart is the exact opposite of understanding the context in which your comments are occurring. Please either go to MetaTalk or communicate with people on this website as if you are one of thousands of members here, not as if it is your own website.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:23 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
Plus, it's quite possible to both believe that the police botched parts of the investigation, and also think that maybe George Zimmerman should, you know, maybe have taken one of the many, many rational and easy choices of action that wouldn't have led to someone dying.
posted by kagredon at 10:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 10:26 AM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
Well, again, it's important to look at the case.
You should have said this +1000 comments ago! I wasn't looking at the case at all before then.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
You should have said this +1000 comments ago! I wasn't looking at the case at all before then.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:27 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
The one thing I appreciate about corb, is that she always covers every outrageous base she can think of on her side of the issue. That way, if I get in a facebook argument or something similar later and someone says something ridiculous, I can come back to the thread and find the place corb made the same argument, and then read down a few more comments and find 4 or 5 concise, intelligent dismantlings of that argument.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2013 [30 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2013 [30 favorites]
hmmm excellent point.
posted by sweetkid at 10:32 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 10:32 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Stephanie Rogers: "They're Lying"
I think they genuinely believe that abortion is equivalent to murdering babies. I think they genuinely believe that universal healthcare would be bad for the country, for reasons that are unfounded, but I think they believe it. I think they genuinely believe homosexuals are an abomination, because their religion tells them so. And I think they genuinely believe the second amendment protects their right to own any kind of gun they desire.posted by audi alteram partem at 10:43 AM on July 18, 2013 [24 favorites]
I don't think they believe the killing of Trayvon Martin had nothing to do with race.
I think, this time, they're lying.
They know, deep down, that George Zimmerman wouldn't have followed a white teenager. They know, deep down, that when George Zimmerman told the dispatcher that, "these assholes, they always get away," he wasn't referring to white teenagers. They know, deep down, that a black man who'd murdered a white teenager in similar circumstances would be spending his life in prison right now.
But for them to admit these facts out loud would mean admitting their own fear of black teenage boys, their own racism. It would mean saying out loud what they truly believe—that Trayvon Martin deserved what he got.
Trayvon was a surrogate, a voodoo doll, for all of Zimmerman's frustrations, disappointments, and failures to be the righteous cop that he desperately wishes he could be. A sacrifice to the success that eluded him. Externalizing his hurt and suffering. Someone has to pay!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 10:46 AM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
I understand how this is a really emotional issue for many MeFites, and I think that this framing is a part of it. Many MeFites seem to be focusing on the portions of the case and framing that seem likely to create anger - not necessarily out of bad intent but just because it's hard to avoid emotional tugging.
It's emotional for a lot pf people, not just mefites, because the framing accurately captures the facts. An innocent, unarmed child was indeed killed by an armed adult who had presumed he was a criminal.
My choice of the word 'innocent' to describe Trayvon Martin is definitely a conscience once because he was simply walking back to his home, after going to get a bag of candy. There's zero evidence that he was doing anything wrong, by any objective measure. So the descriptor of 'innocent' is fitting.
That doesn't mean that Martin was a complete angel who did no wrong in his life. None of us are like that and no one is seriously saying Trayvon was. What they are saying is that when he was walking down the street, doing nothing wrong, and George Zimmerman decided that he not only looked suspicous and called the cops, but then persued Martin, leading to confrontation where he shot and killed him, Trayvon was indeed innocent by any moral and legal standard you wish to apply.
He was innocent and it did not save him. It didn't mean a damn thing to George Zimmerman, the man who killed him and seemingly didn't even try to apply basic first aid techniques or the cops who took Zimmerman in for questioning and later let him go. If you don't understand why people are incredibly upset about that, considering the racism that has existed for centuries in America and instead choose to argue how inappropriate it is for people to bring up these facts, or history or language then...I..I just don't know what say to you. You are seemingly a lost cause and I would ask that you leave Metafilter as you have no place here.
Because your continued instence on having sympathy for Zimmerman is astonishingly questionable. You've displayed opinions before that seemingly adovcate for the right to responsibly bear arms and the right to defend yourself a. Yet George Zimmerman was not responsible, he was quite foolish and his litany of mistakes result in an innocent boy's death and all you can do is worry about how his killer is treated or talked about in single thread on a single internet website
George Zimmerman does't deserve sympathy, not an ounce. He's a poster child for not only irresponsible gun ownership but being an irresponsible and foolish adult who had no business being in a position of authority. He killed a boy, has shown little remorse for doing so, almost assurredly lied about what happened and has managed to get away with murder with zero consequences and a boatload of money.
Sure, he's a marked man and will have hide out for most, if not the rest, of his life and will be forever hated, despised and loathed for what he did. He has no one to blame for that, but himself and his own actions. That you fight for him and for some righting of perceived wrong done to Zimmerman is simply astonishing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [32 favorites]
It's emotional for a lot pf people, not just mefites, because the framing accurately captures the facts. An innocent, unarmed child was indeed killed by an armed adult who had presumed he was a criminal.
My choice of the word 'innocent' to describe Trayvon Martin is definitely a conscience once because he was simply walking back to his home, after going to get a bag of candy. There's zero evidence that he was doing anything wrong, by any objective measure. So the descriptor of 'innocent' is fitting.
That doesn't mean that Martin was a complete angel who did no wrong in his life. None of us are like that and no one is seriously saying Trayvon was. What they are saying is that when he was walking down the street, doing nothing wrong, and George Zimmerman decided that he not only looked suspicous and called the cops, but then persued Martin, leading to confrontation where he shot and killed him, Trayvon was indeed innocent by any moral and legal standard you wish to apply.
He was innocent and it did not save him. It didn't mean a damn thing to George Zimmerman, the man who killed him and seemingly didn't even try to apply basic first aid techniques or the cops who took Zimmerman in for questioning and later let him go. If you don't understand why people are incredibly upset about that, considering the racism that has existed for centuries in America and instead choose to argue how inappropriate it is for people to bring up these facts, or history or language then...I..I just don't know what say to you. You are seemingly a lost cause and I would ask that you leave Metafilter as you have no place here.
Because your continued instence on having sympathy for Zimmerman is astonishingly questionable. You've displayed opinions before that seemingly adovcate for the right to responsibly bear arms and the right to defend yourself a. Yet George Zimmerman was not responsible, he was quite foolish and his litany of mistakes result in an innocent boy's death and all you can do is worry about how his killer is treated or talked about in single thread on a single internet website
George Zimmerman does't deserve sympathy, not an ounce. He's a poster child for not only irresponsible gun ownership but being an irresponsible and foolish adult who had no business being in a position of authority. He killed a boy, has shown little remorse for doing so, almost assurredly lied about what happened and has managed to get away with murder with zero consequences and a boatload of money.
Sure, he's a marked man and will have hide out for most, if not the rest, of his life and will be forever hated, despised and loathed for what he did. He has no one to blame for that, but himself and his own actions. That you fight for him and for some righting of perceived wrong done to Zimmerman is simply astonishing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:55 AM on July 18, 2013 [32 favorites]
A comment I saw somewhere else that sums up how baffled I am about many of the Zimmerman supporters:
"A lot of conceal and carry/gun rights advocates act like this trial was about them. Like if he'd have lost it would have been a defeat for gun rights. They don't get how him getting away with murder is not a victory for gun rights, but just gives more fodder for those against gun rights.
How can we be ok with people carrying guns if they can actually go around murdering people consequence free?"
posted by palomar at 10:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
"A lot of conceal and carry/gun rights advocates act like this trial was about them. Like if he'd have lost it would have been a defeat for gun rights. They don't get how him getting away with murder is not a victory for gun rights, but just gives more fodder for those against gun rights.
How can we be ok with people carrying guns if they can actually go around murdering people consequence free?"
posted by palomar at 10:57 AM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
They don't get how him getting away with murder is not a victory for gun rights, but just gives more fodder for those against gun rights.
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control, except in the very narrow context of stand-your-ground laws. Maybe I'm just not visiting the sites where it's all being discussed, or maybe people are just weary of it, but it's been relatively fodder-free from my vantage.
posted by Etrigan at 11:10 AM on July 18, 2013
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control, except in the very narrow context of stand-your-ground laws. Maybe I'm just not visiting the sites where it's all being discussed, or maybe people are just weary of it, but it's been relatively fodder-free from my vantage.
posted by Etrigan at 11:10 AM on July 18, 2013
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control,
I'd imagine politically that if mass shootings of white kids in New England did shit for gun control, shooting a black teenager in Florida is worth at least less than shit in that so called debate.
Want gun control? Revive the militancy of the Black Panthers and have them start arming up. Start having women packing heat to defend health care clinics. Have gays in southern states start creating "safe spaces" by force.
posted by edgeways at 11:23 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'd imagine politically that if mass shootings of white kids in New England did shit for gun control, shooting a black teenager in Florida is worth at least less than shit in that so called debate.
Want gun control? Revive the militancy of the Black Panthers and have them start arming up. Start having women packing heat to defend health care clinics. Have gays in southern states start creating "safe spaces" by force.
posted by edgeways at 11:23 AM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
Well, we had our "national conversation" on guns after Newtown, and as I recall we solved the problem by agreeing that, while the lives of second graders in Connecticut are more important than the lives of teenagers in Chicago, none of them is important enough to require hunters to reload magazines slightly more often or submit more often to background checks.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:25 AM on July 18, 2013 [23 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:25 AM on July 18, 2013 [23 favorites]
Yeah, I think it's a combination of exhaustion and resignation over the way things have gone lately and the stranglehold the NRA et al has over state legislatures, where they've been successful beyond their wildest dreams. The latter has influence over the former, which means the earliest that anything can get done (barring the NRA becoming an offshoot of the KKK or some other highly unlikely scenario) is after a ringing victory by those in favor of improvements in gun control in 2020, when the Census and therefore redistricting is held.
That said, the current trend is shrinking gun ownership being concentrated more or less into certain political stripes that are themselves shrinking. 2nd Amendment absolutism (I'm thinking here of the belief of it as an unlimited right, or virtually so) is one of those issues that, like the anti-choice movement of now or GLBT discrimination of last decade, currently enjoys a surge of support for a variety of reasons, but shows signs that it will begin to recede sharply in the not-too-distant future. It's not particularly popular amongst the young, it's actively loathed by minority populations that represent more and more of America, and laws like SYG are continually being proven to be horribly ineffective or even hurtful in the public eye. It might take a decade or even a generation or two, but the idea that the right to bear arms is damn near an obligation to do so will become passe or, given more assholery from the NRA and a growth in irresponsible gun owners, even toxic. Of course, this doesn't take into account, say, a resurgence of Jim Crow-level voter suppression of the populations that support gun control (it's one of several reasons, and is definitely not a coincidence), but I think even that has a good chance of being a short-term "rage against the light" rather than a new reality.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
That said, the current trend is shrinking gun ownership being concentrated more or less into certain political stripes that are themselves shrinking. 2nd Amendment absolutism (I'm thinking here of the belief of it as an unlimited right, or virtually so) is one of those issues that, like the anti-choice movement of now or GLBT discrimination of last decade, currently enjoys a surge of support for a variety of reasons, but shows signs that it will begin to recede sharply in the not-too-distant future. It's not particularly popular amongst the young, it's actively loathed by minority populations that represent more and more of America, and laws like SYG are continually being proven to be horribly ineffective or even hurtful in the public eye. It might take a decade or even a generation or two, but the idea that the right to bear arms is damn near an obligation to do so will become passe or, given more assholery from the NRA and a growth in irresponsible gun owners, even toxic. Of course, this doesn't take into account, say, a resurgence of Jim Crow-level voter suppression of the populations that support gun control (it's one of several reasons, and is definitely not a coincidence), but I think even that has a good chance of being a short-term "rage against the light" rather than a new reality.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on July 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control...
As someone on my Facebook feed said - "I've been waiting for Wayne LaPierre to say that if Trayvon had a gun he'd still be alive."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:41 PM on July 18, 2013 [11 favorites]
As someone on my Facebook feed said - "I've been waiting for Wayne LaPierre to say that if Trayvon had a gun he'd still be alive."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:41 PM on July 18, 2013 [11 favorites]
but that would be advocating for black gun ownership wouldn't it? By fucking punks nonetheless.
posted by edgeways at 1:08 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by edgeways at 1:08 PM on July 18, 2013
He killed a boy, has shown little remorse for doing so, almost assurredly lied about what happened
This is something that's surprised me too. In a lot of reasonable discussions i've seen like this thread, plenty of people seem to be going "Well the evidence supports parts/most of his story and it's the only story have and...
What, exactly is his motivation to tell the truth? And what is his motivation to lie? Yea. Not to mention the fact that there's no one to corroborate his story and the only other witnesses(RJ) version seems to diverge from it quite a bit, regardless of what you think about her "credibility"(and i haven't heard a whole ton of very good stuff being said about her. most of it sounds pretty classist/racist like what the juror said).
I'm just amazed at how much benefit of the doubt a lot of people have given him. Not so much the jury, as this entire thing has pretty much demonstrated that basically any sentence about this down there in or outside the courtroom can be prefaced with "So, assuming that you were hypothetically racist as fuck, $question" and everyone pretty much answers as such.
If you don't understand why people are incredibly upset about that, considering the racism that has existed for centuries in America and instead choose to argue how inappropriate it is for people to bring up these facts, or history or language then...I..I just don't know what say to you. You are seemingly a lost cause and I would ask that you leave Metafilter as you have no place here.
Oh man, you better not read the rest of this thread then if you haven't. They definitely aren't the only ones doing a new and improved version of the whole "Well i'm not blaming the victim, but what if..." dance in here. A large portion of the thread has been some sort of devils advocate-y "So you have to look at both sides of the argument or you're not doing it intellectual justice!" type of shit where lots of people were pretty much defending zimmerman in the same way you're describing with it couched in a lot of language to try and make it sound like they were "just examining both sides of the situation!". It's kinda depressing.
I rarely say this, but there really is only one right side to this. One side that history is going to look on and not just absolutely look on with disgust and contempt. Hell, i could never see this even being as settled down as the columbine shooting. A book deal with the parents then just wasn't as gross as the jury book deal thing coming up here somehow.
There is some shameful shit going on here with giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt in pretty much any way, and it's being couched in getting down to minutiae of his story and setting it up as some kind of intellectual micro-analysis of each little detail instead of just looking at the big picture. And as i said in the last thread, and as Brandon just said above, It's a pretty cut and dry thing of "Wannabe batman type gets out of his car, some sort of HEY KID FUCKING STOP thing happens, and when martin says "no" in some/any way he shoots him". This was basically road rage type UR NOT GETTING AWAY WITH THIS ASSHOEL stuff and somehow people are pulling this 9/11 truther WELL WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS garbage. It's gross, and it makes you look gross for doing it.
I'm not saying "and shame on you for saying that!", i'm just saying that this is probably going to be an embarrassing viewpoint to have had, or way to have been approaching this discussion when you look back on it in a few months. I know i've definitely had that realization with discussions over major awful events like this, and i've definitely looked back and seen some cringeworthy discussion by others.
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control, except in the very narrow context of stand-your-ground laws. Maybe I'm just not visiting the sites where it's all being discussed, or maybe people are just weary of it, but it's been relatively fodder-free from my vantage.
You're not the only one weirded out by this. Although, it's a lot like the race thing i was discussing above. It seems like it's almost been set "Off the table" by a lot of people. Since the gun activists didn't want to go there, anyone else who does is just "derailing" or "trying to make the discussion about their pet issue" or whatever. The people who aren't bringing it up are sensing the energy that's surrounding this all over the place, and not wanting to bring it up because they know they'll get poop spewed at them.
Pretty much, this isn't allowed to be a discussion about that until just enough time has gone by that people start bringing up that shit needs to change, and the gun nuts are ready to start pushing back hard. Any sooner and lots of people will be ready to go "Too soon man!" who will likely be going "WOAH hey nothings wrong with the law!" in two weeks or whatever.
At least, that's the feeling i get.
posted by emptythought at 1:14 PM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
This is something that's surprised me too. In a lot of reasonable discussions i've seen like this thread, plenty of people seem to be going "Well the evidence supports parts/most of his story and it's the only story have and...
What, exactly is his motivation to tell the truth? And what is his motivation to lie? Yea. Not to mention the fact that there's no one to corroborate his story and the only other witnesses(RJ) version seems to diverge from it quite a bit, regardless of what you think about her "credibility"(and i haven't heard a whole ton of very good stuff being said about her. most of it sounds pretty classist/racist like what the juror said).
I'm just amazed at how much benefit of the doubt a lot of people have given him. Not so much the jury, as this entire thing has pretty much demonstrated that basically any sentence about this down there in or outside the courtroom can be prefaced with "So, assuming that you were hypothetically racist as fuck, $question" and everyone pretty much answers as such.
If you don't understand why people are incredibly upset about that, considering the racism that has existed for centuries in America and instead choose to argue how inappropriate it is for people to bring up these facts, or history or language then...I..I just don't know what say to you. You are seemingly a lost cause and I would ask that you leave Metafilter as you have no place here.
Oh man, you better not read the rest of this thread then if you haven't. They definitely aren't the only ones doing a new and improved version of the whole "Well i'm not blaming the victim, but what if..." dance in here. A large portion of the thread has been some sort of devils advocate-y "So you have to look at both sides of the argument or you're not doing it intellectual justice!" type of shit where lots of people were pretty much defending zimmerman in the same way you're describing with it couched in a lot of language to try and make it sound like they were "just examining both sides of the situation!". It's kinda depressing.
I rarely say this, but there really is only one right side to this. One side that history is going to look on and not just absolutely look on with disgust and contempt. Hell, i could never see this even being as settled down as the columbine shooting. A book deal with the parents then just wasn't as gross as the jury book deal thing coming up here somehow.
There is some shameful shit going on here with giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt in pretty much any way, and it's being couched in getting down to minutiae of his story and setting it up as some kind of intellectual micro-analysis of each little detail instead of just looking at the big picture. And as i said in the last thread, and as Brandon just said above, It's a pretty cut and dry thing of "Wannabe batman type gets out of his car, some sort of HEY KID FUCKING STOP thing happens, and when martin says "no" in some/any way he shoots him". This was basically road rage type UR NOT GETTING AWAY WITH THIS ASSHOEL stuff and somehow people are pulling this 9/11 truther WELL WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS garbage. It's gross, and it makes you look gross for doing it.
I'm not saying "and shame on you for saying that!", i'm just saying that this is probably going to be an embarrassing viewpoint to have had, or way to have been approaching this discussion when you look back on it in a few months. I know i've definitely had that realization with discussions over major awful events like this, and i've definitely looked back and seen some cringeworthy discussion by others.
I've been pretty surprised at how little people are talking about gun control, except in the very narrow context of stand-your-ground laws. Maybe I'm just not visiting the sites where it's all being discussed, or maybe people are just weary of it, but it's been relatively fodder-free from my vantage.
You're not the only one weirded out by this. Although, it's a lot like the race thing i was discussing above. It seems like it's almost been set "Off the table" by a lot of people. Since the gun activists didn't want to go there, anyone else who does is just "derailing" or "trying to make the discussion about their pet issue" or whatever. The people who aren't bringing it up are sensing the energy that's surrounding this all over the place, and not wanting to bring it up because they know they'll get poop spewed at them.
Pretty much, this isn't allowed to be a discussion about that until just enough time has gone by that people start bringing up that shit needs to change, and the gun nuts are ready to start pushing back hard. Any sooner and lots of people will be ready to go "Too soon man!" who will likely be going "WOAH hey nothings wrong with the law!" in two weeks or whatever.
At least, that's the feeling i get.
posted by emptythought at 1:14 PM on July 18, 2013 [9 favorites]
I rarely say this, but there really is only one right side to this.
This is the conclusion I've come to. A kid that wasn't doing anything wrong wound up in a confrontation where he was shot and killed. That's a terrible tragedy.
The person who killed him not was quickly released and then was only charged after over a month of national pressure and comments from the President of the United States. Then he was acquitted through a self defense ruling. That's a terrible disgrace.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:25 PM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
This is the conclusion I've come to. A kid that wasn't doing anything wrong wound up in a confrontation where he was shot and killed. That's a terrible tragedy.
The person who killed him not was quickly released and then was only charged after over a month of national pressure and comments from the President of the United States. Then he was acquitted through a self defense ruling. That's a terrible disgrace.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:25 PM on July 18, 2013 [15 favorites]
Here in Little Rock, on the day after the verdict, there was a police shooting on the day after the that quickly led to an impromptu street protest.
posted by box at 2:33 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by box at 2:33 PM on July 18, 2013
That's a terrible disgrace.
This. And it's a disgrace that sends a message to an entire group of people. As we saw in that tweet upthread, that message is "You ain't shit."
And it feels like other individuals and people got that message too recently: restrictive abortion laws passing (or about to pass) in several states, that McDonald's "budget", hell -- even the ruling in that case with the Iowa dentist and the woman he fired.
You ain't shit.
Maybe that message gets broadcast every week and I'm particularly sensitive to it this week for some reason but...damn. I just feel like the progressive side of things hasn't gotten any W's in recent times, just L's.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:42 PM on July 18, 2013 [12 favorites]
This. And it's a disgrace that sends a message to an entire group of people. As we saw in that tweet upthread, that message is "You ain't shit."
And it feels like other individuals and people got that message too recently: restrictive abortion laws passing (or about to pass) in several states, that McDonald's "budget", hell -- even the ruling in that case with the Iowa dentist and the woman he fired.
You ain't shit.
Maybe that message gets broadcast every week and I'm particularly sensitive to it this week for some reason but...damn. I just feel like the progressive side of things hasn't gotten any W's in recent times, just L's.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:42 PM on July 18, 2013 [12 favorites]
(Ugh, nix that second on the day after the in my above comment.)
posted by box at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by box at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2013
Fwiw lord_wolf, there have been some good progressive wins on the marriage equity front in recent times. I hear what you're saying in general though.
posted by edgeways at 3:09 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by edgeways at 3:09 PM on July 18, 2013
You ain't shit.
This is definitely the message, like a kabillion people don't get it, and it breaks my heart.
posted by sweetkid at 3:11 PM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
This is definitely the message, like a kabillion people don't get it, and it breaks my heart.
posted by sweetkid at 3:11 PM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
The person who killed him not was quickly released and then was only charged after over a month of national pressure and comments from the President of the United States. Then he was acquitted through a self defense ruling. That's a terrible disgrace.
If he'd been arrested immediately, denied bail, put on trial quickly and then acquitted through a self defense ruling would it still be a terrible disgrace? Is it the initial handling that is the most problematic or the verdict?
posted by Justinian at 3:38 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
If he'd been arrested immediately, denied bail, put on trial quickly and then acquitted through a self defense ruling would it still be a terrible disgrace? Is it the initial handling that is the most problematic or the verdict?
posted by Justinian at 3:38 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is it the initial handling that is the most problematic or the verdict?
That's a false either/or dichotomy of course, but yes the initial handling was obviously problematic because if the President hadn't stepped in Zimmerman wouldn't have been tried at all.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:52 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's a false either/or dichotomy of course, but yes the initial handling was obviously problematic because if the President hadn't stepped in Zimmerman wouldn't have been tried at all.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:52 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
if the President hadn't stepped in Zimmerman wouldn't have been tried at all.
Well I think Angela Corey stepping in was the reason. Obama not so much, even though his heartfelt comment was appreciated and to the point.
posted by snaparapans at 3:57 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well I think Angela Corey stepping in was the reason. Obama not so much, even though his heartfelt comment was appreciated and to the point.
posted by snaparapans at 3:57 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's a false either/or dichotomy of course
Ok, "equally problematic" is a third choice.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on July 18, 2013
Ok, "equally problematic" is a third choice.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on July 18, 2013
You ain't shit.
In the early 90s, I worked briefly in a small law office where the attorneys all did school desegregation law. One of them loaned me a book about two school systems in....New Jersey, I think, that were next door to each other. One was mostly white and quite wealthy, and the other was mostly black and quite poor.
Although I'd been an activist throughout high school and college, and had done anti-racism things (protests, discussions, film series, etc.), the book made me sick with rage. In the first half I spent all my time thinking "But why doesn't someone DO something about this disparity?! People should know about this! They would fix it!" I was 24.
In the second half of the book, I began to really understand that people did know, and they didn't care. This was a thing I had previously understood only intellectually.
They didn't care because those kids ain't shit. That message gets sent early and often, and the kids understand it perfectly.
posted by rtha at 4:12 PM on July 18, 2013 [12 favorites]
In the early 90s, I worked briefly in a small law office where the attorneys all did school desegregation law. One of them loaned me a book about two school systems in....New Jersey, I think, that were next door to each other. One was mostly white and quite wealthy, and the other was mostly black and quite poor.
Although I'd been an activist throughout high school and college, and had done anti-racism things (protests, discussions, film series, etc.), the book made me sick with rage. In the first half I spent all my time thinking "But why doesn't someone DO something about this disparity?! People should know about this! They would fix it!" I was 24.
In the second half of the book, I began to really understand that people did know, and they didn't care. This was a thing I had previously understood only intellectually.
They didn't care because those kids ain't shit. That message gets sent early and often, and the kids understand it perfectly.
posted by rtha at 4:12 PM on July 18, 2013 [12 favorites]
Would love to read that book rtha if you ever recall the title.
posted by cairdeas at 4:31 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cairdeas at 4:31 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
rtha, was it Savage Inequalities, by any chance? That was assigned to me in my first quarter in undergrad, and I swear a fucking lightbulb went off over my head, because until then, I thought of racism as something that was always overt and deliberate: cross-burnings, slurs, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. I didn't fully understand how this was something that quietly permeated society, even seemingly unrelated things like streamlining or tax allocation.
posted by kagredon at 4:35 PM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 4:35 PM on July 18, 2013 [7 favorites]
Well I think Angela Corey stepping in was the reason. Obama not so much, even though his heartfelt comment was appreciated and to the point.
Angela Corey was appointed.
posted by lampshade at 5:07 PM on July 18, 2013
Angela Corey was appointed.
posted by lampshade at 5:07 PM on July 18, 2013
I don't understand that objection (which has been made a couple times now). I mean it's not like prosecutors can just sort of show up and demand the case. Of course she was appointed.
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on July 18, 2013
Angela Corey was appointed. Yes, she was appointed but I do not think Obama's statement about this tragedy was why Zimmerman was tried. He spoke on March 23. Corey was appointed by Rick Scott, on March 22.
posted by snaparapans at 5:33 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by snaparapans at 5:33 PM on July 18, 2013 [1 favorite]
Knowing that, how many people think she was appointed to specifically get this outcome?
I would be willing to bet on that. The "Angela Corey wouldn't do something that made her look like shit!" thing doesn't hold much water to me. She could have been sold this, or thought of it herself as being like a chess feint where you intentionally "fuck something up" to a specific end where you eventually win.
This may very well have been a specific reacharound to the governor or even someone else to get her hand firmly on the next rung of the ladder so she can start pulling herself up beyond "special prosecutor".
After all, when you're in a den of racists you have to play the game if you want to get ahead.
posted by emptythought at 5:39 PM on July 18, 2013
I would be willing to bet on that. The "Angela Corey wouldn't do something that made her look like shit!" thing doesn't hold much water to me. She could have been sold this, or thought of it herself as being like a chess feint where you intentionally "fuck something up" to a specific end where you eventually win.
This may very well have been a specific reacharound to the governor or even someone else to get her hand firmly on the next rung of the ladder so she can start pulling herself up beyond "special prosecutor".
After all, when you're in a den of racists you have to play the game if you want to get ahead.
posted by emptythought at 5:39 PM on July 18, 2013
Justinian, Corey was appointed Special Prosecutor for this particular case which was outside of her own territory. She is the State Attorney for the 4th Circuit. Zimmerman was tried in Seminole Co. which is part of the 18th district. Gov. Scott appointed an "outside" prosecutor because of the controversy. Corey may well have asked to be appointed. I have not read about it if she did.
posted by maggieb at 5:54 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by maggieb at 5:54 PM on July 18, 2013
Angela Corey wouldn't do something that made her look like shit! Yes she would, she seems to do it quite often. Prosecutors in general are a nasty bunch, imo, but she tops them all. Had she not rushed into charging Zimmerman due to personal ambition, she may have had time to develop a better case.
posted by snaparapans at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2013
Maybe I'm not being clear. I know Corey was appointed by the governnor. I'm saying I don't see how that contradicts the idea that she "stepped in". It's a meaningless distinction. But it doesn't really matter; it's a minor point and unimportant in the larger discussion.
The whole "prosecutors threw the case on purpose!!!1!!111!!11" thing is weirding me out. It's like 9/11 trutherism. People want something which doesn't make sense to them to be more complicated than it is.
The prosecution didn't lose because they wanted to lose, they lost because they had a crappy case with crappy facts and were facing excellent, expensive lawyers. Why do you think some lawyers get paid mountains of cash? Because they get NOT GUILTY verdicts.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
The whole "prosecutors threw the case on purpose!!!1!!111!!11" thing is weirding me out. It's like 9/11 trutherism. People want something which doesn't make sense to them to be more complicated than it is.
The prosecution didn't lose because they wanted to lose, they lost because they had a crappy case with crappy facts and were facing excellent, expensive lawyers. Why do you think some lawyers get paid mountains of cash? Because they get NOT GUILTY verdicts.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on July 18, 2013 [8 favorites]
I generally agree. Or did until I heard Juror B37. How on earth did B37 get approved as a juror?
On a different note, I still haven't seen the rationale behind why the Judge banned "racial" when it's so obvious that race was a component of the case. I got linked to a 45 minute video upthread but haven't gotten around to viewing it.
posted by cashman at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2013
On a different note, I still haven't seen the rationale behind why the Judge banned "racial" when it's so obvious that race was a component of the case. I got linked to a 45 minute video upthread but haven't gotten around to viewing it.
posted by cashman at 6:40 PM on July 18, 2013
Having been through voir dire a few times - although never for a high-profile case - it is, at best, inexact.
posted by rtha at 7:13 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by rtha at 7:13 PM on July 18, 2013
On a different note, I still haven't seen the rationale behind why the Judge banned "racial" when it's so obvious that race was a component of the case. I got linked to a 45 minute video upthread but haven't gotten around to viewing it.
Just so you don't waste 45 minutes, the argument on this started around minute 19 of this video and Judge Nelson does not go into detail about her ruling. The defense motion, which did not want the term 'profiling' at all, cites Perez v. State. I'd note that even prosecutor John Guy argued that they didn't intend to make profiling a 'racially charged term,' I would conjecture this is because they simply didn't think they could back it up with the evidence they had.
posted by dsfan at 7:17 PM on July 18, 2013
Just so you don't waste 45 minutes, the argument on this started around minute 19 of this video and Judge Nelson does not go into detail about her ruling. The defense motion, which did not want the term 'profiling' at all, cites Perez v. State. I'd note that even prosecutor John Guy argued that they didn't intend to make profiling a 'racially charged term,' I would conjecture this is because they simply didn't think they could back it up with the evidence they had.
posted by dsfan at 7:17 PM on July 18, 2013
Why do you think some lawyers get paid mountains of cash? Because they get NOT GUILTY verdicts.
“A jury consists of twelve (six) persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” --Robert Frost
The prosecution didn't lose because they wanted to lose, they lost because they had a crappy case with crappy facts and were facing excellent, expensive lawyers.
What about crappy laws? I'm surprised at some of your comments like these which seem more concerned with our misunderstandings of the legal system than the outcome of the case.
It seems to me the DA and the police, or whoever, would rather not have prosecuted this case if they weren't pressured into it. As you said, they probably only care about what is best for their careers -- unless it involves a police shooting or they sympathize with the victims for some other reason. They certainly didn't seem to upset about it this time. I'm not sure what Florida public opinion is, but overall I suspect the majority do not have a problem with this outcome either. I could see how some would even perceive it as a vindication, and a defense for the next time Florida is pressured by the Justice Department to prosecute after a black kid gets killed "in self defense."
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:19 PM on July 18, 2013
“A jury consists of twelve (six) persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” --Robert Frost
The prosecution didn't lose because they wanted to lose, they lost because they had a crappy case with crappy facts and were facing excellent, expensive lawyers.
What about crappy laws? I'm surprised at some of your comments like these which seem more concerned with our misunderstandings of the legal system than the outcome of the case.
It seems to me the DA and the police, or whoever, would rather not have prosecuted this case if they weren't pressured into it. As you said, they probably only care about what is best for their careers -- unless it involves a police shooting or they sympathize with the victims for some other reason. They certainly didn't seem to upset about it this time. I'm not sure what Florida public opinion is, but overall I suspect the majority do not have a problem with this outcome either. I could see how some would even perceive it as a vindication, and a defense for the next time Florida is pressured by the Justice Department to prosecute after a black kid gets killed "in self defense."
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:19 PM on July 18, 2013
How can you separate the outcome of the case from the details of the legal system which produced it?
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on July 18, 2013
I'm not a lawyer, so in a way I guess I see myself as a customer of the legal system. A teenager has been killed for apparently nothing more than walking on the grass with a bag of skittles and his killer faces no consequences, so the legal system appears to be broken as far as I can tell. If my cell phone doesn't work, I don't need to know the exact details that produced the outcome of it not working, I just want a cell phone that works. There seem to be plenty of other societies that are able to prosecute this crime effectively and still succeed at protecting the innocent. I don't buy that this can't be fixed, and I don't think I need a law degree to come to that conclusion.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:51 PM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:51 PM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
Today in Arguments that Are Really Old and Really Racist, Jamelle Bouie, 18 July 2013
I’ve already wasted a lot of digital ink on why it’s dumb to treat these observations [about so-called “black on black crime”] as some indictment of “blackness.” But it’s also worth noting the extent to which these arguments predate modern crime statistics by decades. The idea that blacks are particularly criminal isn’t new, and you can see its construction in the later part of the 19th century, as criminology emerged as a field of study in the urban slums of the industrial north.posted by ob1quixote at 10:02 PM on July 18, 2013 [2 favorites]
⋮
For those of you who think it’s outrageous that anyone would be accused of racism for harping on “black-on-black crime” and blaming the problem on culture—I’m looking at you, Rich Lowry—it’s worth thinking a little about how your rhetoric is identical to old racist bullshit.
so the legal system appears to be broken as far as I can tell
It isn't possible to design a legal system which doesn't fail to punish some guilty men without ensuring it punishes an unacceptable number of innocent ones as well. That isn't to say that we don't need to fix some major problems with our legal system. But the best and most just legal system in the world will still find men who deserve to be punished to be innocent because that's the price of a system which doesn't just throw everyone in jail without a trial.
As to plenty of other societies... there are a few countries which fit the bill but I think you're probably just unfamiliar with the injustices in other country's systems because you aren't immersed in it like you are in ours. Now, other systems having problems isn't an excuse not to address ours but I think you're probably overestimating the amount of corruption in America's compared to most places.
It's true that there's a lot more problems in ours that specifically have to do with discrimination against African Americans... but that's almost tautological.
posted by Justinian at 10:09 PM on July 18, 2013
It isn't possible to design a legal system which doesn't fail to punish some guilty men without ensuring it punishes an unacceptable number of innocent ones as well. That isn't to say that we don't need to fix some major problems with our legal system. But the best and most just legal system in the world will still find men who deserve to be punished to be innocent because that's the price of a system which doesn't just throw everyone in jail without a trial.
As to plenty of other societies... there are a few countries which fit the bill but I think you're probably just unfamiliar with the injustices in other country's systems because you aren't immersed in it like you are in ours. Now, other systems having problems isn't an excuse not to address ours but I think you're probably overestimating the amount of corruption in America's compared to most places.
It's true that there's a lot more problems in ours that specifically have to do with discrimination against African Americans... but that's almost tautological.
posted by Justinian at 10:09 PM on July 18, 2013
"will still find men who deserve to be punished to be innocent not guilty." Not the same thing and I was imprecise.
posted by Justinian at 10:10 PM on July 18, 2013
posted by Justinian at 10:10 PM on July 18, 2013
Golden Eternity: "I'm not a lawyer, so in a way I guess I see myself as a customer of the legal system. A teenager has been killed for apparently nothing more than walking on the grass with a bag of skittles and his killer faces no consequences, so the legal system appears to be broken as far as I can tell. If my cell phone doesn't work, I don't need to know the exact details that produced the outcome of it not working, I just want a cell phone that works. There seem to be plenty of other societies that are able to prosecute this crime effectively and still succeed at protecting the innocent. I don't buy that this can't be fixed, and I don't think I need a law degree to come to that conclusion."
That is not what happened. Not by a long shot.
Here are the events with all the bs stripped away.
a presumably over-zealous member of the neighborhood watch was patrolling the area. He saw a person who appeared to be acting in a susicious matter. [I've been asked what I was doing when I was walking through a neighborhood at night, even had the cops show up on one occasion because they were called to investigate, race has nothing to do with it]
Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin took offense at being questioned. Words were exchanged.
At this point, nothing illegal has happened.
At some point, someone threw a punch, escalating the event into an assault/battery.
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete. Reasonably fearing for his life, he defended himself with his gun.
The only legal question is who started the fight. Starting the fight is punching the other guy. Asking questions, even if done in an asshole manner is not starting a fight. Contrary to what some here say, following a person does not constitute starting a fight either.
If Zimmerman started the fight the he can't claim self-defense.
There was no evidence to support such a claim. The prosecutor failed to do his job. Without evidence to the contrary the presumption is that the accused is not-guilty.
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it. Zimmerman's following and questioning Martin had no bearing on claims of self-defense. The 911 operator suggesting that Zimmerman back off has no bearing.
posted by 2manyusernames at 4:35 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
That is not what happened. Not by a long shot.
Here are the events with all the bs stripped away.
a presumably over-zealous member of the neighborhood watch was patrolling the area. He saw a person who appeared to be acting in a susicious matter. [I've been asked what I was doing when I was walking through a neighborhood at night, even had the cops show up on one occasion because they were called to investigate, race has nothing to do with it]
Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin took offense at being questioned. Words were exchanged.
At this point, nothing illegal has happened.
At some point, someone threw a punch, escalating the event into an assault/battery.
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete. Reasonably fearing for his life, he defended himself with his gun.
The only legal question is who started the fight. Starting the fight is punching the other guy. Asking questions, even if done in an asshole manner is not starting a fight. Contrary to what some here say, following a person does not constitute starting a fight either.
If Zimmerman started the fight the he can't claim self-defense.
There was no evidence to support such a claim. The prosecutor failed to do his job. Without evidence to the contrary the presumption is that the accused is not-guilty.
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it. Zimmerman's following and questioning Martin had no bearing on claims of self-defense. The 911 operator suggesting that Zimmerman back off has no bearing.
posted by 2manyusernames at 4:35 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here are the events with all the bs stripped away.
a presumably over-zealous member of the neighborhood watch was patrolling the area. He saw a person who appeared to be acting in a susicious matter. [I've been asked what I was doing when I was walking through a neighborhood at night, even had the cops show up on one occasion because they were called to investigate, race has nothing to do with it]
Your invisible knapsack is overflowing with BS. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. The fact that you believe race cannot be a factor in this case is the very heart and soul of privilege.
posted by Etrigan at 4:47 AM on July 19, 2013 [31 favorites]
a presumably over-zealous member of the neighborhood watch was patrolling the area. He saw a person who appeared to be acting in a susicious matter. [I've been asked what I was doing when I was walking through a neighborhood at night, even had the cops show up on one occasion because they were called to investigate, race has nothing to do with it]
Your invisible knapsack is overflowing with BS. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. The fact that you believe race cannot be a factor in this case is the very heart and soul of privilege.
posted by Etrigan at 4:47 AM on July 19, 2013 [31 favorites]
That isn't to say that we don't need to fix some major problems with our legal system.
So what can be done to redress the effects of racism in our legal system?
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:08 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
So what can be done to redress the effects of racism in our legal system?
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:08 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
In a neighborhood that had was undergoing a rash of breakins, supposedly by black youth, which Martin happened to be, this is a ridiculous statement.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
In a neighborhood that had was undergoing a rash of breakins, supposedly by black youth, which Martin happened to be, this is a ridiculous statement.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete.
If you are going to make this claim, can you PLEASE provide some physical evidence for it and not take George Zimmerman at his word? There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman was having his 'head bashed against the concrete.' None at all. Please stop. Its a bullshit lie and it doesn't need to be repeated as truth anymore. So if you want to defend Zimmerman, please make claims supported by physical evidence.
FFS.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
If you are going to make this claim, can you PLEASE provide some physical evidence for it and not take George Zimmerman at his word? There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman was having his 'head bashed against the concrete.' None at all. Please stop. Its a bullshit lie and it doesn't need to be repeated as truth anymore. So if you want to defend Zimmerman, please make claims supported by physical evidence.
FFS.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
Bullshit.
That whole screed was full of shit, but that there really is the bullshitiness of the the bullshit, it amazing there are not a mass of flies and dung beetles gathering about it. A-MAZING-ING
posted by edgeways at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
Bullshit.
That whole screed was full of shit, but that there really is the bullshitiness of the the bullshit, it amazing there are not a mass of flies and dung beetles gathering about it. A-MAZING-ING
posted by edgeways at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
New Gallup poll on police interaction
One in four black males between the ages of 18 and 34 say they have been treated unfairly by police within the last month. This underscores the complaints of some who are protesting the Zimmerman verdict by arguing that the case and its outcome reflect a pervasive set of discriminatory practices in U.S. law enforcement.posted by audi alteram partem at 6:19 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
It's impossible for this to be true. To think this is true reveals not only privilege but a profound inability to see and understand things that happen in our society and culture each and every day.
posted by sweetkid at 7:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's impossible for this to be true. To think this is true reveals not only privilege but a profound inability to see and understand things that happen in our society and culture each and every day.
posted by sweetkid at 7:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Zimmerman confronted Martin. Martin took offense at being questioned. Words were exchanged.
This is in fact BS, and you have failed in your claim to have stripped it away. Other than Zimmerman's claims, there is no evidence to support this hypothetical scenario.
posted by mikelieman at 7:55 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
This is in fact BS, and you have failed in your claim to have stripped it away. Other than Zimmerman's claims, there is no evidence to support this hypothetical scenario.
posted by mikelieman at 7:55 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yeah, apparently anything Zimmerman says is the absolute truth, despite his criminal history, his understanding of SYG, and a clear motive not to tell the truth if the truth would put him in jail.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:05 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:05 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
The insidious thing about racism is that if you zoom in close enough, it seems to disappear. When you look at this incident you lose sight of all the other incidents you should be comparing it to. When you look at that incident you lose sight of the aggregate effect in society and history—if you weren't willfully blind to it in the first place.
At some point, someone threw a punch, escalating the event into an assault/battery.
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete.
Starting the fight is punching the other guy.
This is not necessarily how fights start, and two men's injuries and the eyewitness testimony do not support George Zimmerman's account much at all.
Personally I think it's likely that Zimmerman tried to grab and hold onto Martin, provoking the fight and explaining: why it was Zimmerman yelling help so much from the start even if he wasn't in mortal danger; why Zimmerman apparently did nothing else in the fight; why witnesses saw a lot of arm-flailing but there wasn't much in the way of punching injuries; how Zimmerman's head bumped/scraped the sidewalk because he is basically getting dragged by Martin who is trying to escape; why Martin didn't just go home. Zimmerman knew the cops were coming, that "they always get away". it was a golden opportunity to be the hero. He thought he had authority. "The suspect" could run at any second; if Zimmerman wanted to catch him he had to act now. Maybe Zimmerman even thought about going for his gun but thought that Martin would just run away, and that thought got twisted and enshrined into the just going for his phone provocation.
I think the presence of the gun turned the consequence of losing a scuffle into life or death situation. The gun created a reason to use itself. Or, maybe more deeply, Zimmerman was worried Martin would take his gun and run off with it, and then he'd have to explain what happened to his idols the police. I don't think Martin went for the gun, really; I think when Zimmerman realized he was going to lose the struggle, all the possible consequences of that presented themselves to his mind and once and that's when he made the decision to shoot Martin.
I also think Zimmerman didn't head back to his truck after the 911 call, but decided to patrol down the alley, and that Martin was trying to hide, but felt a little childish when Zimmerman got close or saw him. Thus: why the fight and Martin's body wound up so far from the cut-through; where the missing minutes went; why Zimmerman got suddenly cagey about giving out his address to the 911 dispatcher ("I don't know where this kid is."); why Zimmerman told the dispatcher he won't be at his truck, but instead the cops should call him to find out where he will be. If he wasn't going back to his truck, where was he going? Most of all, it explains how the confrontation happens in the first place, without Martin suddenly for no reason confronting a man who was walking away.
Zimmerman's testimony isn't very believable. It covers up his mistakes too nicely. Before the end of the 911 call, Martin has avoided conflict and Zimmerman has pushed for it. Everything we know about them up to that point says Zimmerman wants to instigate when he shouldn't and Martin wants to be left alone. Now, suddenly in this period of time when all we have is Zimmerman's testimony, we're supposed to believe everything is reversed; Zimmerman is just walking along innocently, now not at all interested in following where he saw Martin go, and it's Martin who pushes and escalates every single step for no good reason. Zimmerman fabricates things, projecting his own awareness of the importance of his gun onto what Martin does, as if Martin was the one hyper-aware of Zimmerman's gun, or the importance it had in the fight. Zimmerman leaves out that he was grabbing and holding Martin, but can't positively lie about what he was actively doing instead, so in his account it's like he's laying there doing nothing not even sure what he's doing with his arms. He makes up a bunch of generic aggressive black man dialogue for Martin to have said. Maybe Martin did call him a motherfucker once and that was enough to extrapolate the rest. Zimmerman's story has to be absolutely straight and bland, with nothing in Zimmerman's behavior to draw any criticism at all and everything bad on Martin—in contrast with everything he'd done up to that point.
Sorry, got carried away there. There's probably some evidence I've missed or am forgetting. I just wish the prosecution could have done more to present a scenario that was more believable than Zimmerman's.
posted by bleep-blop at 8:17 AM on July 19, 2013 [19 favorites]
At some point, someone threw a punch, escalating the event into an assault/battery.
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete.
Starting the fight is punching the other guy.
This is not necessarily how fights start, and two men's injuries and the eyewitness testimony do not support George Zimmerman's account much at all.
Personally I think it's likely that Zimmerman tried to grab and hold onto Martin, provoking the fight and explaining: why it was Zimmerman yelling help so much from the start even if he wasn't in mortal danger; why Zimmerman apparently did nothing else in the fight; why witnesses saw a lot of arm-flailing but there wasn't much in the way of punching injuries; how Zimmerman's head bumped/scraped the sidewalk because he is basically getting dragged by Martin who is trying to escape; why Martin didn't just go home. Zimmerman knew the cops were coming, that "they always get away". it was a golden opportunity to be the hero. He thought he had authority. "The suspect" could run at any second; if Zimmerman wanted to catch him he had to act now. Maybe Zimmerman even thought about going for his gun but thought that Martin would just run away, and that thought got twisted and enshrined into the just going for his phone provocation.
I think the presence of the gun turned the consequence of losing a scuffle into life or death situation. The gun created a reason to use itself. Or, maybe more deeply, Zimmerman was worried Martin would take his gun and run off with it, and then he'd have to explain what happened to his idols the police. I don't think Martin went for the gun, really; I think when Zimmerman realized he was going to lose the struggle, all the possible consequences of that presented themselves to his mind and once and that's when he made the decision to shoot Martin.
I also think Zimmerman didn't head back to his truck after the 911 call, but decided to patrol down the alley, and that Martin was trying to hide, but felt a little childish when Zimmerman got close or saw him. Thus: why the fight and Martin's body wound up so far from the cut-through; where the missing minutes went; why Zimmerman got suddenly cagey about giving out his address to the 911 dispatcher ("I don't know where this kid is."); why Zimmerman told the dispatcher he won't be at his truck, but instead the cops should call him to find out where he will be. If he wasn't going back to his truck, where was he going? Most of all, it explains how the confrontation happens in the first place, without Martin suddenly for no reason confronting a man who was walking away.
Zimmerman's testimony isn't very believable. It covers up his mistakes too nicely. Before the end of the 911 call, Martin has avoided conflict and Zimmerman has pushed for it. Everything we know about them up to that point says Zimmerman wants to instigate when he shouldn't and Martin wants to be left alone. Now, suddenly in this period of time when all we have is Zimmerman's testimony, we're supposed to believe everything is reversed; Zimmerman is just walking along innocently, now not at all interested in following where he saw Martin go, and it's Martin who pushes and escalates every single step for no good reason. Zimmerman fabricates things, projecting his own awareness of the importance of his gun onto what Martin does, as if Martin was the one hyper-aware of Zimmerman's gun, or the importance it had in the fight. Zimmerman leaves out that he was grabbing and holding Martin, but can't positively lie about what he was actively doing instead, so in his account it's like he's laying there doing nothing not even sure what he's doing with his arms. He makes up a bunch of generic aggressive black man dialogue for Martin to have said. Maybe Martin did call him a motherfucker once and that was enough to extrapolate the rest. Zimmerman's story has to be absolutely straight and bland, with nothing in Zimmerman's behavior to draw any criticism at all and everything bad on Martin—in contrast with everything he'd done up to that point.
Sorry, got carried away there. There's probably some evidence I've missed or am forgetting. I just wish the prosecution could have done more to present a scenario that was more believable than Zimmerman's.
posted by bleep-blop at 8:17 AM on July 19, 2013 [19 favorites]
I just saw a meme cross facebook, "something something Why Didn't Zimmerman Offer Martin A Ride Home Out Of The Rain something something something"....
Puts it all into perspective, really, doesn't it?
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
Puts it all into perspective, really, doesn't it?
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
bleep-blop, you pretty much nailed how I've felt about this from the beginning. Accepting Zimmerman's account means you have to assume Martin acted in a manner that exactly follows the narrative Zimmerman had going in his head when he made the initial 911 call. I think it's important to note that during the period of time when Zimmerman crafted this story and the Police readily believed it, Martin was unidentified. Unless you're inclined to believe some pretty uncharitable things about Martin based on societal stereotypes about Black males, that narrative falls apart completely once you find out Trayvon was just a kid walking home from the store.
Even if I disregard the potential for racial bias. Zimmerman's story just stinks. Life just doesn't work that way. Other people don't follow the narrative in your head. The act in weird and unexpected ways based on their own internal narratives. We are a skittish and unpredictable lot. Especially when alone. Especially when afraid.
Based just on the provable evidence, Zimmerman's behavior that night was weird and unpredictable. Just as I would expect. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that Trayvon acted exactly in a manner that not only follows the story that Zimmerman concocted before any actual contact with him, but hews exactly to the prejudicial tropes about young black thugs. And we're supposed to accept this from a person who has every reason to lie.
Lying about what happened is about the only predictable thing Zimmerman did that night. Which is why believing his story whole cloth is simply unconscionable. I hope the Justice department probe goes farther than just looking at Zimmerman, and looks at the way this case was initially handled by the police and the DA's office.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:52 AM on July 19, 2013 [14 favorites]
Even if I disregard the potential for racial bias. Zimmerman's story just stinks. Life just doesn't work that way. Other people don't follow the narrative in your head. The act in weird and unexpected ways based on their own internal narratives. We are a skittish and unpredictable lot. Especially when alone. Especially when afraid.
Based just on the provable evidence, Zimmerman's behavior that night was weird and unpredictable. Just as I would expect. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that Trayvon acted exactly in a manner that not only follows the story that Zimmerman concocted before any actual contact with him, but hews exactly to the prejudicial tropes about young black thugs. And we're supposed to accept this from a person who has every reason to lie.
Lying about what happened is about the only predictable thing Zimmerman did that night. Which is why believing his story whole cloth is simply unconscionable. I hope the Justice department probe goes farther than just looking at Zimmerman, and looks at the way this case was initially handled by the police and the DA's office.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:52 AM on July 19, 2013 [14 favorites]
This is fascinating: Is there a Case Against Angela Corey?
"first, as others have written, the prosecution -- led by controversial veteran Angela Corey -- did a lousy job. But, given the many years of trial experience of the lawyers for the state, the types of errors they made have struck me as more than just the result of mere sloppiness or oversights. Isn't one of the most basic lessons of first year trial advocacy to prepare your witnesses? How could it be that the state in a high-profile murder prosecution allows a critical "ear witness" to the incident, Rachel Jeantel, to testify with so little obvious preparation? How could it be that the state could allow their medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, to testify in such an confusing, halting, and ill-prepared manner (particularly under cross-examination) -- not to mention the contrast between his shaky performance and that of the defense's smooth and confident forensic pathologist, Dr. Vincent Di Maio?
Much has been said about the charges Corey's office brought against George Zimmerman, but indulge me by considering them again. Why on earth would the DA bring second degree murder charges after a six week investigation in which the police concluded that the suspect had legitimate grounds for a justifiable homicide defense? Even if Corey had disagreed with their estimation, she should have known that the investigating officers would fight tooth and nail on the stand to support their initial analysis of the evidence -- particularly given that she and her colleagues were "special" prosecutors appointed from another county and, therefore, had no history or relationship with these cops? Also, why not just charge manslaughter from the outset, thereby shifting the prosecution's focus from the nearly impossible-to-prove (given the evidence), "hate in his heart," to the more palatable, "reckless actions that led unfortunately to a death"? In fact, why not give the state the cover provided by first presenting the case to a grand jury, rather than proceeding by means of criminal information and a bare bones probable cause affidavit? "
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
"first, as others have written, the prosecution -- led by controversial veteran Angela Corey -- did a lousy job. But, given the many years of trial experience of the lawyers for the state, the types of errors they made have struck me as more than just the result of mere sloppiness or oversights. Isn't one of the most basic lessons of first year trial advocacy to prepare your witnesses? How could it be that the state in a high-profile murder prosecution allows a critical "ear witness" to the incident, Rachel Jeantel, to testify with so little obvious preparation? How could it be that the state could allow their medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, to testify in such an confusing, halting, and ill-prepared manner (particularly under cross-examination) -- not to mention the contrast between his shaky performance and that of the defense's smooth and confident forensic pathologist, Dr. Vincent Di Maio?
Much has been said about the charges Corey's office brought against George Zimmerman, but indulge me by considering them again. Why on earth would the DA bring second degree murder charges after a six week investigation in which the police concluded that the suspect had legitimate grounds for a justifiable homicide defense? Even if Corey had disagreed with their estimation, she should have known that the investigating officers would fight tooth and nail on the stand to support their initial analysis of the evidence -- particularly given that she and her colleagues were "special" prosecutors appointed from another county and, therefore, had no history or relationship with these cops? Also, why not just charge manslaughter from the outset, thereby shifting the prosecution's focus from the nearly impossible-to-prove (given the evidence), "hate in his heart," to the more palatable, "reckless actions that led unfortunately to a death"? In fact, why not give the state the cover provided by first presenting the case to a grand jury, rather than proceeding by means of criminal information and a bare bones probable cause affidavit? "
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
Trayvon Martin and the Burden of Being a Black Male
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:05 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:05 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
"In an unusual move, the Justice Department announced Wednesday that it is collecting feedback from Americans for its investigation into whether to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
Justice officials said the move comes “because of interest in this matter.” People can e-mail Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov if they have thoughts on how the department should proceed."
posted by rtha at 10:06 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Justice officials said the move comes “because of interest in this matter.” People can e-mail Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov if they have thoughts on how the department should proceed."
posted by rtha at 10:06 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
One in four black males between the ages of 18 and 34 say they have been treated unfairly by police within the last month. This underscores the complaints of some who are protesting the Zimmerman verdict by arguing that the case and its outcome reflect a pervasive set of discriminatory practices in U.S. law enforcement.
I wonder what percentage of white males between 18 and 34 have had any kind of interaction with the police in the last month? About a month ago, I was run through a boating sobriety check point and then subsequently told one of those officers that I had seen a kid left alone in a car, but before that I honestly could not tell you the last time I had an interaction with a police officer beyond just seeing them on the street. Sometimes it seems like cops barely even exist for white people.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:11 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
I wonder what percentage of white males between 18 and 34 have had any kind of interaction with the police in the last month? About a month ago, I was run through a boating sobriety check point and then subsequently told one of those officers that I had seen a kid left alone in a car, but before that I honestly could not tell you the last time I had an interaction with a police officer beyond just seeing them on the street. Sometimes it seems like cops barely even exist for white people.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:11 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Pretty sure if you look some type of "scruffy" or "druggy" as a white person you could get crap for it.
posted by sweetkid at 10:14 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:14 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
bleep-blop does a very good job of explaining why Zimmerman's narrative is incoherent and unconvincing. This doesn't mean he should have been convicted though, since under Florida law the onus is on the prosecution to prove his actions were not in self-defense, and of course, he had no obligation to retreat. Being anything less than certain that he is lying, a juror would have to acquit to avoid violating the judge's instructions.
This is why it's important to point out that Zimmerman's story is inconsistent with every available piece of physical evidence: the lack of wounds on either Zimmerman's head or Martin's hands consistent with the "ground and pound" claim, the lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands and sleeves, and the police pictures of Zimmerman's clothes showing no signs he was on his back on a rainy, muddy path.
This is why I was so shocked by the acquittal. The jury was presented with all the evidence they needed to reject Zimmerman's story as a deliberate fabrication, which would have at least warranted a manslaughter conviction. If he had a plausible case for self-defense, he wouldn't have lied.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:15 AM on July 19, 2013 [7 favorites]
This is why it's important to point out that Zimmerman's story is inconsistent with every available piece of physical evidence: the lack of wounds on either Zimmerman's head or Martin's hands consistent with the "ground and pound" claim, the lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands and sleeves, and the police pictures of Zimmerman's clothes showing no signs he was on his back on a rainy, muddy path.
This is why I was so shocked by the acquittal. The jury was presented with all the evidence they needed to reject Zimmerman's story as a deliberate fabrication, which would have at least warranted a manslaughter conviction. If he had a plausible case for self-defense, he wouldn't have lied.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:15 AM on July 19, 2013 [7 favorites]
Being anything less than certain that he is lying, a juror would have to acquit to avoid violating the judge's instructions.
Believing something beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean being certain.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:16 AM on July 19, 2013
Believing something beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean being certain.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:16 AM on July 19, 2013
Shankar Vedantam reports on "How To Fight Racial Bias When It's Silent And Subtle" on today's Morning Edition. Transcript not yet posted, but the story does include this line: "Teaching people about the injustice of discrimination or asking them to be empathetic toward others was ineffective."
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:18 AM on July 19, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:18 AM on July 19, 2013 [8 favorites]
"Teaching people about the injustice of discrimination or asking them to be empathetic toward others was ineffective."
/cries
/bangs head on desk
posted by rtha at 10:20 AM on July 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
/cries
/bangs head on desk
posted by rtha at 10:20 AM on July 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
Believing something beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean being certain.
Fair enough, though I would't be comfortable saying that Zimmerman was lying beyond a reasonable doubt without any physical evidence. I really think this was seriously underplayed, by either the media, the prosecution or both. Zimmerman's story sounds like bullshit, sure, but that leaves wiggle room for reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's story is inconsistent with physical evidence from the scene of the crime? That's a whole lot less wiggle room.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:25 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Fair enough, though I would't be comfortable saying that Zimmerman was lying beyond a reasonable doubt without any physical evidence. I really think this was seriously underplayed, by either the media, the prosecution or both. Zimmerman's story sounds like bullshit, sure, but that leaves wiggle room for reasonable doubt. Zimmerman's story is inconsistent with physical evidence from the scene of the crime? That's a whole lot less wiggle room.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:25 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Teaching people about the injustice of discrimination or asking them to be empathetic toward others was ineffective."
/cries
/bangs head on desk
I haven't read the link, but, for anyone who feels like 100% despairing after reading this particular fact, I just want to say that it is possible to change how people feel about this, I have seen it happen over and over in my life. But I don't think it usually happens by "teaching" them because it's a feeling they have, not something logical that they thing. Their feelings need to change. When I have seen it happen, it has happened over decades.
posted by cairdeas at 10:29 AM on July 19, 2013
/cries
/bangs head on desk
I haven't read the link, but, for anyone who feels like 100% despairing after reading this particular fact, I just want to say that it is possible to change how people feel about this, I have seen it happen over and over in my life. But I don't think it usually happens by "teaching" them because it's a feeling they have, not something logical that they thing. Their feelings need to change. When I have seen it happen, it has happened over decades.
posted by cairdeas at 10:29 AM on July 19, 2013
"In an unusual move, the Justice Department announced Wednesday that it is collecting feedback from Americans for its investigation into whether to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
Justice officials said the move comes “because of interest in this matter.” People can e-mail Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov if they have thoughts on how the department should proceed." (emphasis mine)
Just as I predicted upthread, the sensationalist claims from the wingnutosphere that this was "crowdsourcing" a witch-hunt against Zimmerman turned out to be wildly off the mark and overblown. I mean, considering the people making the most noise about it amongst the US digerati were admitted white supremacists and the tinfoil hat brigade, it was too easy. After all, it seemed all too similar to the supposed IRS vendetta against conservatives "scandal" which has since been proven to be more or less an invention of the GOP fever swamp with an assist from their reps in Congress.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:29 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
Justice officials said the move comes “because of interest in this matter.” People can e-mail Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov if they have thoughts on how the department should proceed." (emphasis mine)
Just as I predicted upthread, the sensationalist claims from the wingnutosphere that this was "crowdsourcing" a witch-hunt against Zimmerman turned out to be wildly off the mark and overblown. I mean, considering the people making the most noise about it amongst the US digerati were admitted white supremacists and the tinfoil hat brigade, it was too easy. After all, it seemed all too similar to the supposed IRS vendetta against conservatives "scandal" which has since been proven to be more or less an invention of the GOP fever swamp with an assist from their reps in Congress.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:29 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
This is fascinating
If by "fascinating" you mean "pants on head, Truther-level crazy."
a critical "ear witness"
"Ear witness." For Christ's sake. Can you imagine how utterly scornful you would be of the value of the evidence given by the young girlfriend/boyfriend of a victim of a crime who is imaginatively reconstructing a scene she heard over the phone if you happened to have prejudged the case in opposition to that girlfriend/boyfriend's testimony? God alone knows that eyewitness testimony is hopelessly and horribly fallible and subject to incredibly malleable reconstruction according to what we either want to believe we saw or what we expected to see, but this?
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete.
If you are going to make this claim, can you PLEASE provide some physical evidence for it and not take George Zimmerman at his word?
Zimmerman does not have to provide evidence for his claim. The state has to prove that it is false. This is the nature of Florida's self-defense laws. Zimmerman merely has to establish that there is, at a minimum, reasonable doubt as to whether or not his claims are true. I do not see how anyone who is not hopelessly biased can claim that the state proved or could have proven from the available facts that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation between himself and Martin.
As to the question of evidence, there are simply no witnesses whatsoever--ear, eye or otherwise, who can provide meaningful testimony to the question of who initiated the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman. That fact makes the prosecution's case already almost impossible. Worse, however, the only actual eyewitness to the altercation itself testifies that Martin was definitely getting the better of the fight. Again, remember that we do not have to believe that this witness is clearly right or that his testimony is unimpeachable, all we have to believe is that there is a reasonable doubt that he might be both truthful and accurate. Can you show me where the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was either dishonest or incorrect? And as to Zimmerman's claims about having his head banged into the pavement, we have expert medical testimony to the effect that Zimmerman's wounds are consistent with his account. Once again, we do not have to believe that this testimony is either conclusive or unimpeachable, all we have to believe is that we must entertain a reasonable doubt that it may be correct. Again, can you show me that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's medical expert was fraudulent, incompetent or dishonest? No? Then the prosecution fails and the jury rightfully must acquit.
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
Bullshit.
I can't speak for the poster, but I'm willing to bet that what s/he meant was that race had nothing to do with the question of whether or not the jury's decision was sound, not that race had nothing to do with this tragic case. Obviously race had everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin ended up dead that day. Obviously Zimmerman's distorted beliefs about what makes someone worthy of suspicion are rooted in America's tragic history of racial prejudice and racial oppression. No one with an ounce of sense would dispute that. Had Trayvon Martin been a white teenager it is almost certain that he'd have gone happily about his business that day. But that sad and legitimately enraging fact is pretty much irrelevant in regards to the question of Zimmerman's legal liability. It is not illegal for an individual to have distorted beliefs rooted in racial prejudice. It is not illegal for somebody to act on those distorted beliefs to the extent of suspecting someone of potentially planning criminal activities, it is not illegal to act on those suspicions to the extent of accosting that person and asking them their business. These are the acts we can prove that Zimmerman engaged in and none of them are illegal. They might prove to us that Zimmerman is a person we would not choose to have as our friend; they might prove to us that Zimmerman is someone who is behaving in ways that we think ill advised and likely to lead to no good, but they do not amount to criminal behavior.
To prove a crime here you have to prove that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation with Martin. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not initiate the physical altercation. And essentially your "proof" amounts to retroactive mind-reading of Trayvon Martin that declares that it is impossible that he could have ever done such a thing. This being largely based upon, well, nothing--a sentimentalizing posthumous sanctification of Martin as a martyr to America's tragic racial inequalities that has essentially nothing to do with who he was as an actual, real, living breathing person. Martin is essentially a blank in this whole narrative onto which people project whatever they want to believe. From what I've read of him, he sounds like a pretty ordinary teenage kid, uncertain about his status as a young man. In other words, he sounds like someone I can easily imagine getting freaked out by this weird guy following him around and thinking "I'd better stand up for myself here and show that I can't be pushed around." I also think it's possible that Zimmerman might have tried to physically detain Martin ("until the cops arrive") and that Martin might have, quite legitimately, fought back. In the absence of a single shred of useful evidence to decide between those scenarios, however, I cannot pretend that there is not a reasonable doubt that the former might not be correct. And given that there is such a reasonable doubt, it seems absurdly clear to me that the jury made the right decision--under Florida law--in finding Zimmerman not guilty.
posted by yoink at 10:43 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
If by "fascinating" you mean "pants on head, Truther-level crazy."
a critical "ear witness"
"Ear witness." For Christ's sake. Can you imagine how utterly scornful you would be of the value of the evidence given by the young girlfriend/boyfriend of a victim of a crime who is imaginatively reconstructing a scene she heard over the phone if you happened to have prejudged the case in opposition to that girlfriend/boyfriend's testimony? God alone knows that eyewitness testimony is hopelessly and horribly fallible and subject to incredibly malleable reconstruction according to what we either want to believe we saw or what we expected to see, but this?
Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed against the concrete.
If you are going to make this claim, can you PLEASE provide some physical evidence for it and not take George Zimmerman at his word?
Zimmerman does not have to provide evidence for his claim. The state has to prove that it is false. This is the nature of Florida's self-defense laws. Zimmerman merely has to establish that there is, at a minimum, reasonable doubt as to whether or not his claims are true. I do not see how anyone who is not hopelessly biased can claim that the state proved or could have proven from the available facts that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation between himself and Martin.
As to the question of evidence, there are simply no witnesses whatsoever--ear, eye or otherwise, who can provide meaningful testimony to the question of who initiated the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman. That fact makes the prosecution's case already almost impossible. Worse, however, the only actual eyewitness to the altercation itself testifies that Martin was definitely getting the better of the fight. Again, remember that we do not have to believe that this witness is clearly right or that his testimony is unimpeachable, all we have to believe is that there is a reasonable doubt that he might be both truthful and accurate. Can you show me where the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was either dishonest or incorrect? And as to Zimmerman's claims about having his head banged into the pavement, we have expert medical testimony to the effect that Zimmerman's wounds are consistent with his account. Once again, we do not have to believe that this testimony is either conclusive or unimpeachable, all we have to believe is that we must entertain a reasonable doubt that it may be correct. Again, can you show me that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's medical expert was fraudulent, incompetent or dishonest? No? Then the prosecution fails and the jury rightfully must acquit.
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
Bullshit.
I can't speak for the poster, but I'm willing to bet that what s/he meant was that race had nothing to do with the question of whether or not the jury's decision was sound, not that race had nothing to do with this tragic case. Obviously race had everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin ended up dead that day. Obviously Zimmerman's distorted beliefs about what makes someone worthy of suspicion are rooted in America's tragic history of racial prejudice and racial oppression. No one with an ounce of sense would dispute that. Had Trayvon Martin been a white teenager it is almost certain that he'd have gone happily about his business that day. But that sad and legitimately enraging fact is pretty much irrelevant in regards to the question of Zimmerman's legal liability. It is not illegal for an individual to have distorted beliefs rooted in racial prejudice. It is not illegal for somebody to act on those distorted beliefs to the extent of suspecting someone of potentially planning criminal activities, it is not illegal to act on those suspicions to the extent of accosting that person and asking them their business. These are the acts we can prove that Zimmerman engaged in and none of them are illegal. They might prove to us that Zimmerman is a person we would not choose to have as our friend; they might prove to us that Zimmerman is someone who is behaving in ways that we think ill advised and likely to lead to no good, but they do not amount to criminal behavior.
To prove a crime here you have to prove that Zimmerman initiated a physical altercation with Martin. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not initiate the physical altercation. And essentially your "proof" amounts to retroactive mind-reading of Trayvon Martin that declares that it is impossible that he could have ever done such a thing. This being largely based upon, well, nothing--a sentimentalizing posthumous sanctification of Martin as a martyr to America's tragic racial inequalities that has essentially nothing to do with who he was as an actual, real, living breathing person. Martin is essentially a blank in this whole narrative onto which people project whatever they want to believe. From what I've read of him, he sounds like a pretty ordinary teenage kid, uncertain about his status as a young man. In other words, he sounds like someone I can easily imagine getting freaked out by this weird guy following him around and thinking "I'd better stand up for myself here and show that I can't be pushed around." I also think it's possible that Zimmerman might have tried to physically detain Martin ("until the cops arrive") and that Martin might have, quite legitimately, fought back. In the absence of a single shred of useful evidence to decide between those scenarios, however, I cannot pretend that there is not a reasonable doubt that the former might not be correct. And given that there is such a reasonable doubt, it seems absurdly clear to me that the jury made the right decision--under Florida law--in finding Zimmerman not guilty.
posted by yoink at 10:43 AM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Not sure why anyone here would support a government a snitch line, but I guess this case has made normally rational people insane. See something Say Something is bad enough but personalizing a government witch hunt, seems like a really bad precedent to me.
National Neighborhood Watch? Ironic, no?
And as for this: Is there a Case Against Angela Corey?
Among other reasons to fire her, this is a good one:
National Neighborhood Watch? Ironic, no?
And as for this: Is there a Case Against Angela Corey?
Among other reasons to fire her, this is a good one:
A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey's office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman's prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday.posted by snaparapans at 10:48 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Zimmerman does not have to provide evidence for his claim. The state has to prove that it is false.
Who are you arguing with? Who do you think you are arguing with? When I tell people to shut the fuck up and stop repeating the unsupported claim that Martin was repeatedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, I am telling them to shut the fuck up and stop repeating something that isn't supported by the evidence. In that context, where the burden of proof lies in a courtroom is irrelevant. What is relevant is shutting the fuck up and stop saying that Zimmerman's head was being repeatedly slammed onto concrete by Martin.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [16 favorites]
Who are you arguing with? Who do you think you are arguing with? When I tell people to shut the fuck up and stop repeating the unsupported claim that Martin was repeatedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground, I am telling them to shut the fuck up and stop repeating something that isn't supported by the evidence. In that context, where the burden of proof lies in a courtroom is irrelevant. What is relevant is shutting the fuck up and stop saying that Zimmerman's head was being repeatedly slammed onto concrete by Martin.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [16 favorites]
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but how are the public's "thoughts on how the department should proceed" at all relevant to the decision as to whether a person should be charged with a crime?
At least a crowd-sourcing "tip line" can be defended on the grounds that it could actually be a repository for evidence and testimony. How is justice served by the public giving Zimmerman the equivalent of a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down"?
posted by BobbyVan at 10:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
At least a crowd-sourcing "tip line" can be defended on the grounds that it could actually be a repository for evidence and testimony. How is justice served by the public giving Zimmerman the equivalent of a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down"?
posted by BobbyVan at 10:49 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not sure why anyone here would support a government a snitch line
Well, for starters, because it's not a government snitch line. Read the description again.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, for starters, because it's not a government snitch line. Read the description again.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:54 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Obviously race had everything to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin ended up dead that day..... But that sad and legitimately enraging fact is pretty much irrelevant in regards to the question of Zimmerman's legal liability.
Racism also affected the actions of government officials after Zimmerman murdered Martin. Racism influenced the botched investigation, the slipshod prosecution and at least one juror's understanding of the case (even if they made the right decision given the case as presented by the court).
Racism exists. It permeates our institutions and perceptions. It poisons our lives and kills our children. Legal liability means very little when moral liability is so thoughtlessly tossed aside as it has been in this case when people avoid facing racism head on.
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:55 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
Racism also affected the actions of government officials after Zimmerman murdered Martin. Racism influenced the botched investigation, the slipshod prosecution and at least one juror's understanding of the case (even if they made the right decision given the case as presented by the court).
Racism exists. It permeates our institutions and perceptions. It poisons our lives and kills our children. Legal liability means very little when moral liability is so thoughtlessly tossed aside as it has been in this case when people avoid facing racism head on.
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:55 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
not to mention the contrast between his shaky performance and that of the defense's smooth and confident forensic pathologist, Dr. Vincent Di Maio?
That's not really fair. It's comparing a local probably competent but not exceptional workman with a superstar. There's a reason di Maio is the go-to guy for expert gunshot testimony. Because he's stellar. It's like putting a good triple-A closer up against Mariano Rivera and being surprised at the contrast.
But I am a little bemused at how "theses witnesses were TERRIBLE and the prosecution didn't prepare them and it was obvious" has become the dominant belief. Because when we were talking about the trial in progress in the other thread I was yelled at for saying how terrible they were and how unprepared and people were saying what great and believable witnesses they were and how good a job the prosecution did with them and I was obviously biased, etc.
It's easy to be critical in hindsight.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
That's not really fair. It's comparing a local probably competent but not exceptional workman with a superstar. There's a reason di Maio is the go-to guy for expert gunshot testimony. Because he's stellar. It's like putting a good triple-A closer up against Mariano Rivera and being surprised at the contrast.
But I am a little bemused at how "theses witnesses were TERRIBLE and the prosecution didn't prepare them and it was obvious" has become the dominant belief. Because when we were talking about the trial in progress in the other thread I was yelled at for saying how terrible they were and how unprepared and people were saying what great and believable witnesses they were and how good a job the prosecution did with them and I was obviously biased, etc.
It's easy to be critical in hindsight.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
President Obama just made an unscheduled appearance at the daily White House press briefing to talk about the case.:
"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” Obama said. “Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
The President said that the reaction many African-Americans have had to the acquittal of Zimmerman stems from experiences to which he can relate.
“There are very few African-American in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me,” Obama said. “There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often."
posted by vibrotronica at 11:14 AM on July 19, 2013 [15 favorites]
"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” Obama said. “Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
The President said that the reaction many African-Americans have had to the acquittal of Zimmerman stems from experiences to which he can relate.
“There are very few African-American in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me,” Obama said. “There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often."
posted by vibrotronica at 11:14 AM on July 19, 2013 [15 favorites]
because it's not a government snitch line. Read the description again.
I have read about it, and it seems like a personalized snitch line to me..
posted by snaparapans at 11:19 AM on July 19, 2013
I have read about it, and it seems like a personalized snitch line to me..
The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.And why anyone who is fighting against racial injustice would want to add new programs for DOJ government prosecutors, when the budget for public defenders has been slashed has gotten it wrong, imo. Better to call your congressperson to provide more money for public defenders, imo.
“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information,” that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. “They said they would very aggressively investigate this case.”
posted by snaparapans at 11:19 AM on July 19, 2013
YouTube: Obama on Trayvon Martin Killing.
posted by snaparapans at 11:26 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by snaparapans at 11:26 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
President Obama just made an unscheduled appearance at the daily White House press briefing to talk about the case.:
Great, my inlaws are going to be completely lose their shit over yet another unconstitutional overreach of executive power, while white christians are suffering in America.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:29 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
Great, my inlaws are going to be completely lose their shit over yet another unconstitutional overreach of executive power, while white christians are suffering in America.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:29 AM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
well, I thought it was awesome.
posted by sweetkid at 11:30 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 11:30 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anybody who gets upset at what Obama said is just looking for reasons to hate on him. It was about as tepid a response as possible.
posted by Justinian at 11:31 AM on July 19, 2013
posted by Justinian at 11:31 AM on July 19, 2013
The youtube clip, good as it is, does not encompass all that the American president said.
Rush transcript of Obama’s Statement On Trayvon Martin
posted by Mister Bijou at 11:36 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Rush transcript of Obama’s Statement On Trayvon Martin
posted by Mister Bijou at 11:36 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have read about it, and it seems like a personalized snitch line to me
I think you're reading the secondhand erroneous leaks article posted upthread, and not the one rtha quoted just a little bit ago that seems to be the official request.
And why anyone who is fighting against racial injustice would want to add new programs for DOJ government prosecutors, when the budget for public defenders has been slashed has gotten it wrong, imo. Better to call your congressperson to provide more money for public defenders, imo.
First of all, PDs are local and state jobs, not federal. I, for one, would love more investment in state and local government, but between the recession and the austerity idiocy, their budgets are being slashed. I already vote against the assholes doing this on the state level, my state and federal Reps and Senators already know this, and I wholeheartedly support any pushback on it. And second, the DOJ has an entire division devoted to civil rights violations. They are currently the last if not only defense against the new Jim Crow laws that just got the greenlight from SCOTUS (led by noted anti-voting rights crusader John Roberts), and anything that increases their ability to do that work is a good thing by me.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:36 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think you're reading the secondhand erroneous leaks article posted upthread, and not the one rtha quoted just a little bit ago that seems to be the official request.
And why anyone who is fighting against racial injustice would want to add new programs for DOJ government prosecutors, when the budget for public defenders has been slashed has gotten it wrong, imo. Better to call your congressperson to provide more money for public defenders, imo.
First of all, PDs are local and state jobs, not federal. I, for one, would love more investment in state and local government, but between the recession and the austerity idiocy, their budgets are being slashed. I already vote against the assholes doing this on the state level, my state and federal Reps and Senators already know this, and I wholeheartedly support any pushback on it. And second, the DOJ has an entire division devoted to civil rights violations. They are currently the last if not only defense against the new Jim Crow laws that just got the greenlight from SCOTUS (led by noted anti-voting rights crusader John Roberts), and anything that increases their ability to do that work is a good thing by me.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:36 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anybody who gets upset at what Obama said is just looking for reasons to hate on him. It was about as tepid a response as possible.
The usual response is to demand to know why this particular case is getting so much media attention, when there's tragedies occurring. Answer: Al Sharpton and Jessue Jackson's flagarant manipulation of racial politics in America, which has been holding black people back for years.
Bonus points if its a black conservative saying this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:37 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The usual response is to demand to know why this particular case is getting so much media attention, when there's tragedies occurring. Answer: Al Sharpton and Jessue Jackson's flagarant manipulation of racial politics in America, which has been holding black people back for years.
Bonus points if its a black conservative saying this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:37 AM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
But I am a little bemused at how "theses witnesses were TERRIBLE and the prosecution didn't prepare them and it was obvious" has become the dominant belief. Because when we were talking about the trial in progress in the other thread I was yelled at for saying how terrible they were and how unprepared and people were saying what great and believable witnesses they were and how good a job the prosecution did with them and I was obviously biased, etc.
Unless the same people are doing both, I don't see what the point is. I haven't read the earlier statements of the law professor that I linked to, but I doubt she was saying these witnesses were great before the verdict.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:42 AM on July 19, 2013
Unless the same people are doing both, I don't see what the point is. I haven't read the earlier statements of the law professor that I linked to, but I doubt she was saying these witnesses were great before the verdict.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:42 AM on July 19, 2013
This part of Obama's remarks shows that he really doesn't understand how far off the deep end gun culture in America is:
In the real world, we know that's bullshit, but that's going to be their argument, so he's not going to convince anyone with this hypothetical.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:46 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
For those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these stand your ground laws, I just ask people to consider if trayvon martin was of able and armed could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened. And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.I'm sure you'll find some supporters of SYG who are simply racist hypocrites who would find some way to argue that Zimmerman would have been justified but Martin wouldn't have been, but racist hypocrisy isn't actually the issue. To the true gun nut, more guns is the answer to everything, and they will cheerfully respond to Obama's question with the "armed society is a polite society" argument, that if Martin were carrying, he would have instantly defused the situation.
In the real world, we know that's bullshit, but that's going to be their argument, so he's not going to convince anyone with this hypothetical.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:46 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm saying that if the verdict had gone the other way you'd have people writing articles about how real and authentic and non-coached they seemed and how the defense was obviously too slick and over rehearsed.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 11:46 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think you're reading the secondhand erroneous leaks article posted upthread,
No I am reading the reporting from Orlando Sentinel... there is an email tip line soliciting information to help the government find evidence that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights. Not sure how to interpret it as anything other than a personalized snitch line.
And I think that the money spent on this is a waste, if a dime comes out of the funds to fight racism in this country, that is a crime, imo. This move is a PR move, the Civil Rights Division and FBI investigated Zimmerman and came up with nothing to ratchet this up to a Hate Crime. To solicit public responses in the wake of massive disappointment with Zimmerman's acquittal, is really ill advised. Personally, I would be more concerned about the callers getting on a watch list than believing that any good will come of it.
posted by snaparapans at 11:48 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
No I am reading the reporting from Orlando Sentinel... there is an email tip line soliciting information to help the government find evidence that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights. Not sure how to interpret it as anything other than a personalized snitch line.
And I think that the money spent on this is a waste, if a dime comes out of the funds to fight racism in this country, that is a crime, imo. This move is a PR move, the Civil Rights Division and FBI investigated Zimmerman and came up with nothing to ratchet this up to a Hate Crime. To solicit public responses in the wake of massive disappointment with Zimmerman's acquittal, is really ill advised. Personally, I would be more concerned about the callers getting on a watch list than believing that any good will come of it.
posted by snaparapans at 11:48 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
No I am reading the reporting from Orlando Sentinel... there is an email tip line soliciting information to help the government find evidence that Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights. Not sure how to interpret it as anything other than a personalized snitch line.
That is, in fact, the secondhand erroneous leaks article I was referring to, which is not supported by the apparently official statement rtha links to and quotes.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
That is, in fact, the secondhand erroneous leaks article I was referring to, which is not supported by the apparently official statement rtha links to and quotes.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:51 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Experiences and History
Obama’s statement struck me as squarely identifying what’s wrong with the Supreme Court decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case, what’s wrong with claims that affirmative action is useless and morally tainted, and what’s wrong with the belief that with slavery and Jim Crow gone, the only genuine civil rights cause is to protect white people from the injustice of continued African-American grievances. People still alive remember Jim Crow. Still more know something about history. And anyone paying attention understands the connection between those “experiences and history” and contemporary phenomena ranging from mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, to “Stand Your Ground” and concealed-carry laws, to attacks on “looters” and “parasites,” and to the undermining of public schools and the social safety net.posted by zombieflanders at 11:53 AM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
You can certainly disagree with me or with the president on all of those subjects. But please, let’s stop pretending “experiences and history” aren't relevant to them, or that African-Americans need to “get over” it all and shut up about it.
Someone on my twitter feed just pointed out that the fact that Obama is commenting on Trayvon Martin and the trial almost signals there isn't a true federal investigation going on, because then he woudln't be able to comment on it.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:54 AM on July 19, 2013
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:54 AM on July 19, 2013
Robert Zimmerman on Obama: ‘I’m glad he spoke out today’
Robert Zimmerman Jr., the brother of the man who was found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin last week, said Friday that he’s happy President Obama addressed the underlying issues of the case in a statement.posted by BobbyVan at 11:57 AM on July 19, 2013
“I’m glad he spoke out today,” Zimmerman said on Fox News, adding that he’s been waiting for the president to weigh in since the verdict was handed down Saturday night.
Zimmerman echoed Obama’s argument that inequalities in society can contribute to different views of what happened the night his brother, George Zimmerman, killed Martin, and said the country needs to move beyond race in future scenarios like it.
“I think the president was speaking off the cuff, and I think he was very sincere in his remarks,” Robert Zimmerman said, adding: “My concern is that … we do everything we can for children who are having difficulties — and I really see eye to eye with the president on that — difficulties in life.”
He also said he doesn’t disagree with the Justice Department’s continued investigation of Zimmerman and whether to bring civil rights charges, but said the decision shouldn’t be made in response to public pressure.
“I’m not sure that necessarily an investigation is a bad thing,” he said. “I’m a little bit concerned sometimes that our leaders are responding to pressure.”
a personalized snitch line
On the one hand, calling the Government to report that your brown-skinned neighbor is Up to No Good because you saw him unloading a bag of fertilizer from the trunk of his car (for instance) is a direction we should not encourage people to take.
On the other hand, contributing to a culture wherein someone who reports knowledge of a possible crime to the authorities gets tagged as a horrible snitch is also not a direction that goes anywhere good.
posted by rtha at 11:59 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
On the one hand, calling the Government to report that your brown-skinned neighbor is Up to No Good because you saw him unloading a bag of fertilizer from the trunk of his car (for instance) is a direction we should not encourage people to take.
On the other hand, contributing to a culture wherein someone who reports knowledge of a possible crime to the authorities gets tagged as a horrible snitch is also not a direction that goes anywhere good.
posted by rtha at 11:59 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
That is, in fact, the secondhand erroneous leaks article I was referring to, which is not supported by the apparently official statement rtha links to and quotes.
Huh? the Orlando Sentinel's report is almost identical as regards information to the WaPo one rtha posted.
If that is not a personalized snitch line from the US DOJ, I do not know what would be one.
posted by snaparapans at 12:00 PM on July 19, 2013
Huh? the Orlando Sentinel's report is almost identical as regards information to the WaPo one rtha posted.
Justice officials said the move comes “because of interest in this matter.” People can e-mail xxx [intentonally omitted] if they have thoughts on how the department should proceed.WaPo
It’s not clear how much bearing the feedback will have on the decision, which Justice officials have said will be made by “experienced federal prosecutors.”
If that is not a personalized snitch line from the US DOJ, I do not know what would be one.
posted by snaparapans at 12:00 PM on July 19, 2013
On the other hand, contributing to a culture wherein someone who reports knowledge of a possible crime to the authorities gets tagged as a horrible snitch is also not a direction that goes anywhere good.
Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
posted by snaparapans at 12:01 PM on July 19, 2013
Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
posted by snaparapans at 12:01 PM on July 19, 2013
I think that solid Police work is usually the most reliable when it comes to solving crimes. Snitches usually have and personal agenda and wind up sending an investigation on a lot of red herrings, imo. Information derived from snitches are about as reliable as information from torture, imo.
posted by snaparapans at 12:05 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 12:05 PM on July 19, 2013
Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
So I shouldn't have called the cops that time I saw someone kicking in a window in the building next to mine? You would just...walk away?
posted by rtha at 12:10 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
So I shouldn't have called the cops that time I saw someone kicking in a window in the building next to mine? You would just...walk away?
posted by rtha at 12:10 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Does anyone have any reason why we shouldn't believe Vincent DeMaio's testimony?
http://www.businessinsider.com/vincent-di-maios-george-zimmerman-testimony-2013-7
I mean, sounds like bullshit, esp. when you consider that Zimmerman had no concussion.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:19 PM on July 19, 2013
http://www.businessinsider.com/vincent-di-maios-george-zimmerman-testimony-2013-7
I mean, sounds like bullshit, esp. when you consider that Zimmerman had no concussion.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:19 PM on July 19, 2013
I mean, you do know GZ was NOT a member of an official neighborhood watch group and that the actual neighborhood watch group does not endorse nor support armed vigilantism.
Not what I understand. Maybe this PDF announcing a Neighborhood Watch Meeting was faked by Zimmerman, I doubt it though.
posted by snaparapans at 12:31 PM on July 19, 2013
Not what I understand. Maybe this PDF announcing a Neighborhood Watch Meeting was faked by Zimmerman, I doubt it though.
posted by snaparapans at 12:31 PM on July 19, 2013
I think Obama was very measured and justified in what he said. I can already see people completely losing their shit over his line about asking people to ponder if Martin would have felt justified in shooting Zimmerman. All kinds of opportunity to remove the context of that line.
He looked like he was casting about for answers, and I don't blame him. I've been feeeling the same way.
posted by dry white toast at 12:33 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
He looked like he was casting about for answers, and I don't blame him. I've been feeeling the same way.
posted by dry white toast at 12:33 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch. It just wasn't one registered with the National Sheriff's Association. But lots of neighborhood watches aren't registered there. The whole "Zimmerman wasn't really a member of a neighborhood watch" is just another (in this case mistaken) way to try to make him look bad. As if shooting Martin isn't enough to do that.
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:36 PM on July 19, 2013
Huh? the Orlando Sentinel's report is almost identical as regards information to the WaPo one rtha posted[...]If that is not a personalized snitch line from the US DOJ, I do not know what would be one.
Nope. If you read it closely, the Sentinel's report made it sound like the DOJ was telling everybody to send in stories of how racist Zimmerman is whereas the Post story says the DOJ is looking for opinions on the case itself.
I think that solid Police work is usually the most reliable when it comes to solving crimes. Snitches usually have and personal agenda and wind up sending an investigation on a lot of red herrings, imo. Information derived from snitches are about as reliable as information from torture, imo.
Perhaps if you didn't lump in criminal informants with regular people calling into tip lines, you wouldn't feel this way.
Not what I understand. Maybe this PDF announcing a Neighborhood Watch Meeting was faked by Zimmerman, I doubt it though.
If he was claiming that he was representing the official Neighborhood Watch Program (and it looks like he was), then it very well may have been faked, or at least a fraudulent misrepresentation:
National Sheriff’s Association Releases Statement on Florida Neighborhood Watch Tragedy
Nope. If you read it closely, the Sentinel's report made it sound like the DOJ was telling everybody to send in stories of how racist Zimmerman is whereas the Post story says the DOJ is looking for opinions on the case itself.
I think that solid Police work is usually the most reliable when it comes to solving crimes. Snitches usually have and personal agenda and wind up sending an investigation on a lot of red herrings, imo. Information derived from snitches are about as reliable as information from torture, imo.
Perhaps if you didn't lump in criminal informants with regular people calling into tip lines, you wouldn't feel this way.
Not what I understand. Maybe this PDF announcing a Neighborhood Watch Meeting was faked by Zimmerman, I doubt it though.
If he was claiming that he was representing the official Neighborhood Watch Program (and it looks like he was), then it very well may have been faked, or at least a fraudulent misrepresentation:
National Sheriff’s Association Releases Statement on Florida Neighborhood Watch Tragedy
The purpose of the Neighborhood Watch Program is to enable citizens to act as the “eyes and ears” within their community and alert law enforcement immediately when they notice suspicious activity. However, the Neighborhood Watch Program does not in any way, shape, or form advocate citizens to take the law in their own hands. The success of the program has established Neighborhood Watch as the nation’s premier crime prevention and community mobilization program. Visible signs of the program are seen throughout America on street signs, window decals, community block parties and service projects.posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on July 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
"The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.). “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”
“The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard. “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”
Um. As I said, there is no requirement that a Neighborhood Watch register itself with the National Sheriff's Association.
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
There is nothing wrong with neighborhood watch groups. That is as long as they understand definitions #1 & #2 and stay away from adding on #3 in some misguided attempt to enhance #1 & #2.
Alternately, maybe some people in these groups could be armed with 9mm Dictionaries?
1) neighborhood
/ˈnābərˌho͝od/ - Noun
A district, esp. one forming a community within a town or city.
The people of such a district.
2) watch
/wäCH/ - Verb
Look at or observe attentively, typically over a period of time.
3) vigilante
/ˌvijəˈlantē/ - Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically.
posted by lampshade at 12:40 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
There is nothing wrong with neighborhood watch groups. That is as long as they understand definitions #1 & #2 and stay away from adding on #3 in some misguided attempt to enhance #1 & #2.
Alternately, maybe some people in these groups could be armed with 9mm Dictionaries?
1) neighborhood
/ˈnābərˌho͝od/ - Noun
A district, esp. one forming a community within a town or city.
The people of such a district.
2) watch
/wäCH/ - Verb
Look at or observe attentively, typically over a period of time.
3) vigilante
/ˌvijəˈlantē/ - Noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically.
posted by lampshade at 12:40 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not what I understand. Maybe this PDF announcing a Neighborhood Watch Meeting was faked by Zimmerman, I doubt it though.
Exactly what is your point? That all neighborhood watch programs - affiliated with the local PD or National Sheriff's Association or not - are bad? That anyone reporting a crime in their neighborhood is a snitch?
posted by rtha at 12:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly what is your point? That all neighborhood watch programs - affiliated with the local PD or National Sheriff's Association or not - are bad? That anyone reporting a crime in their neighborhood is a snitch?
posted by rtha at 12:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Justinian: "Um. As I said, there is no requirement that a Neighborhood Watch register itself with the National Sheriff's Association."
In that case, what's the difference between...
(checks preview, sees lamshade's post...)
yeah. what he said.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:42 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
In that case, what's the difference between...
(checks preview, sees lamshade's post...)
yeah. what he said.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:42 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman was probably a very bad member of a neighborhood watch. That doesn't make him not a member of a neighborhood watch!
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on July 19, 2013
You are free to support Neighborhood Watch as much as you like, rtha. I do not like Neighborhood Watchers, am not keen on Police either, but they are much better then Neighborhood Watchers, by a longshot. I think that the Zimmermans in this world should find something better to do than hang out looking for criminals.
posted by snaparapans at 12:46 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 12:46 PM on July 19, 2013
Justinian: "Zimmerman was probably a very bad member of a neighborhood watch. That doesn't make him not a member of a neighborhood watch!"
No, but it calls into question the whole idea that being a member of a neighborhood watch actually means anything.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:46 PM on July 19, 2013
No, but it calls into question the whole idea that being a member of a neighborhood watch actually means anything.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:46 PM on July 19, 2013
Zimmerman was probably a very bad member of a neighborhood watch. That doesn't make him not a member of a neighborhood watch!
A neighborhood watch that consisted only of himself? I don't understand what your point is.
posted by sweetkid at 12:47 PM on July 19, 2013
A neighborhood watch that consisted only of himself? I don't understand what your point is.
posted by sweetkid at 12:47 PM on July 19, 2013
Then you're not reading closely. People claimed he wasn't a member of a neighborhood watch. He was.
posted by Justinian at 12:48 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:48 PM on July 19, 2013
Harvard Law fellow Michelle Meyer:
"The state put on an expert witness who testified, based on her observation of the picture of the back of GZ's head, that his injuries looked "minor" and required no stitches. Other witnesses (e.g., the booking officer) testified that although GZ's head wound was still actively bleeding at the station, he declined to go immediately to the hospital and at no point lost consciousness.
However, the defense put on an expert witness (Di Maio) who testified (correctly; see, e.g., research showing that even subconcussive head injury can lead to CTE) that serious, permanent brain injury and even death can result from an impact to the head that results in no loss of consciousness or concussion or even any external marks. He testified that GZ's lacerations suggested at least six impacts and perhaps more that didn't leave marks, and he described cases in which people under those circumstances later dropped dead an criticized officers for not insisting that GZ go directly to a hospital (noting cases in which arrestees had died in holding cells under similar circumstances and the prisons had been found liable). As for your definition above, GZ did say, in different words (e.g., his head felt like it was exploding), that he was in "extreme physical pain" in his Hannity interview (I confess I can't recall for sure whetehr the prosecution introduced that part into evidence or edited it out). In short, if you believe his version of events, then GZ couldn't have known that the injuries he actually received wouldn't cause serious bodily injury or death.
Much more importantly, the extent of GZ's actual received injuries is, as the defense put it, "gravy" under the law; the law requires a reasonable belief in future (imminent) serious bodily harm, so the fact that GZ only had a (probably) broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head that didn't require stitches or result in loss of consciousness -- even if GZ could have known that these would be medically benign -- isn't the end of the story. The state's own witness (the African American JAG officer who taught GZ criminal justice), in one of the most jaw-dropping moments in a trial full of them, testified to this point of law (without objection by the prosecution, oddly) and when asked by the defense whether someone is obligated to wait until they have actually experienced serious bodily injury or death before invoking their right to self defense, responded, "I wouldn't recommend that." GZ "testified" through his media interviews that TM said "you're going to die tonight MF"; that he called for help multiple times over 40 seconds as his head was being slammed against the concrete multiple times; and that he feared that he would lose consciousness and didn't know what would happen at that point. (The last claim about loss of consciousness is from the Hannity interview, and again, I can't recall whether it was introduced at trial instead of edited out; I paid no attention to this case prior to the trial (which I increasingly think gives me a different perspective on the verdict than many who consumed lots of pretrial media on the case but little of the actual trial) so I didn't see the interview at the time it originally aired, but the networks have been playing it during the trial, and I may have seen it in that context rather than in trial.) Another expert for the defense (Root, I think) testified that under the circumstances (taking GZ's story as true) he had "no other choice" but to use deadly force or continue to be subject to an assault that other witnesses testified could be lethal."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:49 PM on July 19, 2013
"The state put on an expert witness who testified, based on her observation of the picture of the back of GZ's head, that his injuries looked "minor" and required no stitches. Other witnesses (e.g., the booking officer) testified that although GZ's head wound was still actively bleeding at the station, he declined to go immediately to the hospital and at no point lost consciousness.
However, the defense put on an expert witness (Di Maio) who testified (correctly; see, e.g., research showing that even subconcussive head injury can lead to CTE) that serious, permanent brain injury and even death can result from an impact to the head that results in no loss of consciousness or concussion or even any external marks. He testified that GZ's lacerations suggested at least six impacts and perhaps more that didn't leave marks, and he described cases in which people under those circumstances later dropped dead an criticized officers for not insisting that GZ go directly to a hospital (noting cases in which arrestees had died in holding cells under similar circumstances and the prisons had been found liable). As for your definition above, GZ did say, in different words (e.g., his head felt like it was exploding), that he was in "extreme physical pain" in his Hannity interview (I confess I can't recall for sure whetehr the prosecution introduced that part into evidence or edited it out). In short, if you believe his version of events, then GZ couldn't have known that the injuries he actually received wouldn't cause serious bodily injury or death.
Much more importantly, the extent of GZ's actual received injuries is, as the defense put it, "gravy" under the law; the law requires a reasonable belief in future (imminent) serious bodily harm, so the fact that GZ only had a (probably) broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head that didn't require stitches or result in loss of consciousness -- even if GZ could have known that these would be medically benign -- isn't the end of the story. The state's own witness (the African American JAG officer who taught GZ criminal justice), in one of the most jaw-dropping moments in a trial full of them, testified to this point of law (without objection by the prosecution, oddly) and when asked by the defense whether someone is obligated to wait until they have actually experienced serious bodily injury or death before invoking their right to self defense, responded, "I wouldn't recommend that." GZ "testified" through his media interviews that TM said "you're going to die tonight MF"; that he called for help multiple times over 40 seconds as his head was being slammed against the concrete multiple times; and that he feared that he would lose consciousness and didn't know what would happen at that point. (The last claim about loss of consciousness is from the Hannity interview, and again, I can't recall whether it was introduced at trial instead of edited out; I paid no attention to this case prior to the trial (which I increasingly think gives me a different perspective on the verdict than many who consumed lots of pretrial media on the case but little of the actual trial) so I didn't see the interview at the time it originally aired, but the networks have been playing it during the trial, and I may have seen it in that context rather than in trial.) Another expert for the defense (Root, I think) testified that under the circumstances (taking GZ's story as true) he had "no other choice" but to use deadly force or continue to be subject to an assault that other witnesses testified could be lethal."
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:49 PM on July 19, 2013
My understanding is that while the Sanford Neighborhood Watch wasn't registered with the National Sheriff's Association, they did receive training/educational support from the SPD; my understanding is also that this is not very uncommon among Neighborhood Watch groups.
posted by kagredon at 12:50 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by kagredon at 12:50 PM on July 19, 2013
I really don't understand the problem with accepting Zimmerman was in a neighborhood watch. Is Martin any less dead if he isn't? Is the tragedy any greater? Are his actions any more morally justified?
posted by Justinian at 12:50 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:50 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
And here's another report on the DOJ's tip-line (or, if you prefer, the American Idol-style voting system / unattended voicemail box).
Otherwise, what would be the point of the Justice Department setting up an official online presence to collect the opinions of anonymous assholes about the case in general? Isn't that what Metafilter exists for?
posted by BobbyVan at 12:51 PM on July 19, 2013
A Justice official told Fox News that both the conference call and the email address asking for tips and information are fairly standard procedure when dealing with a high-profile investigation such as this one. The department has used such tip lines in the past, including in a probe last year of the Albuquerque, N.M., police department.And here's an official reference to the actual "tip line" the DOJ set up last year during its investigation of the Albuquerque police force.
Attorneys and staff from the Special Litigation Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division will conduct the investigation, assisted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico. Individuals who may have relevant information are encouraged to contact the department via email at community.albuquerque@usdoj.gov or by calling the department’s toll free number at 885-544-5134 which is available in both English and Spanish.If Justice Department officials are going to cite the Albuquerque case as precedent, it seems most likely the Sanford email address was set up as a tip line, in which case yes, the DOJ is pretty much crowdsourcing its investigation into Zimmerman's racism.
Otherwise, what would be the point of the Justice Department setting up an official online presence to collect the opinions of anonymous assholes about the case in general? Isn't that what Metafilter exists for?
posted by BobbyVan at 12:51 PM on July 19, 2013
Maybe they don't know about us, BobbyVan? You should email them and let them know about MetaFilter.
posted by rtha at 1:00 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:00 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
If Justice Department officials are going to cite the Albuquerque case as precedent, it seems most likely the Sanford email address was set up as a tip line, in which case yes, the DOJ is pretty much crowdsourcing its investigation into Zimmerman's racism.
Okay, first of all, citing an article from Fox News entitled "DOJ trolling for email tips in Zimmerman probe" seems a little off to me. If that wasn't setting off alarm bells, the fact that they don't bother quoting the unnamed DOJ official makes it seem like they're inferring that the line is for snitching, not that that's what they were told. And on top of that, it's the Fox News reporter that cites the Albuquerque case as precedent, not the DOJ official. The only other source that reported anything similar got all of their info secondhand, and at least one other source says that's not what it's being used for.
Otherwise, what would be the point of the Justice Department setting up an official online presence to collect the opinions of anonymous assholes about the case in general? Isn't that what Metafilter exists for?
The government has a ton of e-mail addresses asking for people's opinions on hot-button issues like Obamacare or immigration or gun control. They even have an entire website up for petitions. It might be a little unusual, but not unprecedented.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:07 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Okay, first of all, citing an article from Fox News entitled "DOJ trolling for email tips in Zimmerman probe" seems a little off to me. If that wasn't setting off alarm bells, the fact that they don't bother quoting the unnamed DOJ official makes it seem like they're inferring that the line is for snitching, not that that's what they were told. And on top of that, it's the Fox News reporter that cites the Albuquerque case as precedent, not the DOJ official. The only other source that reported anything similar got all of their info secondhand, and at least one other source says that's not what it's being used for.
Otherwise, what would be the point of the Justice Department setting up an official online presence to collect the opinions of anonymous assholes about the case in general? Isn't that what Metafilter exists for?
The government has a ton of e-mail addresses asking for people's opinions on hot-button issues like Obamacare or immigration or gun control. They even have an entire website up for petitions. It might be a little unusual, but not unprecedented.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:07 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that this tip line is not about a group, (police force) but about an individual: Zimmerman. Has that been fairly standard procedure? If so, why not point to another individual who has been the object of a tip line.
A popular system for DOJ prosecutors to get dirt on individuals who they are either prosecuting or building a case against. Disgusting, imo...
posted by snaparapans at 1:07 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
A popular system for DOJ prosecutors to get dirt on individuals who they are either prosecuting or building a case against. Disgusting, imo...
posted by snaparapans at 1:07 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Justinian: "I really don't understand the problem with accepting Zimmerman was in a neighborhood watch. Is Martin any less dead if he isn't? Is the tragedy any greater? Are his actions any more morally justified?"
Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem accepting that he was a member of an entity that called itself a "neighborhood watch." However, the circumstances of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin compel us to ask questions about the legitimacy of that entity, and to consider whether it's appropriate to have members of neighborhood watch organizations pursuing suspected criminals by vehicle and on foot.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem accepting that he was a member of an entity that called itself a "neighborhood watch." However, the circumstances of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin compel us to ask questions about the legitimacy of that entity, and to consider whether it's appropriate to have members of neighborhood watch organizations pursuing suspected criminals by vehicle and on foot.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
I agree with that; a neighborhood watch is supposed to watch. Hence the name.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Then it's appropriate to question whether the entity that consisted of a guy doing way more than watching was really a watch.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:14 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by tonycpsu at 1:14 PM on July 19, 2013
He was no true Scotsman.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Jesus Christ, the Dept of Justice asking members of the public to provide any information they may think relevant to an investigation is not "crowdsourcing its investigation into Zimmerman's racism". Maybe if the Boston police asked Reddit members to comb through footage of the marathon bombing, and identify potential suspects on the basis of what they found, you could call it "crowdsourcing the investigation". And if the Boston police had done that, well, we know how that would have ended up. With a missing-for-3-weeks-then-found-dead student from India "identified" as the bomber. Case closed; no point in continuing to pursue the actual suspects, happily shooting their way through suburban greater Boston/Cambridge.
posted by Len at 1:15 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Len at 1:15 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
The government has a ton of e-mail addresses asking for people's opinions on hot-button issues like Obamacare or immigration or gun control. They even have an entire website up for petitions. It might be a little unusual, but not unprecedented.
It's not unprecedented for the Department of Justice to set up a tip line... but that's usually for an unsolved crime or a wide-ranging and complex investigation.
I think it is unprecedented for the Department of Justice to set up a comment line to share "thoughts on how the department should proceed" in a specific case. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this point.
Do you really think the "petitions" model is a good one for our law enforcement agencies to follow?
posted by BobbyVan at 1:19 PM on July 19, 2013
It's not unprecedented for the Department of Justice to set up a tip line... but that's usually for an unsolved crime or a wide-ranging and complex investigation.
I think it is unprecedented for the Department of Justice to set up a comment line to share "thoughts on how the department should proceed" in a specific case. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this point.
Do you really think the "petitions" model is a good one for our law enforcement agencies to follow?
posted by BobbyVan at 1:19 PM on July 19, 2013
If so, why not point to another individual who has been the object of a tip line.
FBI Most Wanted
I think I'm remembering right that after Whitey Bulger was finally caught, there was also a tip line for people to call if they had any knowledge about crimes he had committed.
posted by rtha at 1:20 PM on July 19, 2013
FBI Most Wanted
I think I'm remembering right that after Whitey Bulger was finally caught, there was also a tip line for people to call if they had any knowledge about crimes he had committed.
posted by rtha at 1:20 PM on July 19, 2013
Justinian: "He was no true Scotsman."
Next time, you should think a little bit about whether the logical fallacy you're trying to invoke actually matches what was said.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:24 PM on July 19, 2013
Next time, you should think a little bit about whether the logical fallacy you're trying to invoke actually matches what was said.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:24 PM on July 19, 2013
Yeah, it is true rtha. I should have thought about all the wanted dead or alive posters, FBI most wanted etc. But I think that is different. When there is ample evidence that a wanted criminal has allegedly murdered many people (Bulger for instance), it is different from when there is no evidence that someone (Zimmerman) perpetuated a Hate Crime. Particularly setting this up when emotions are at a high point, seems really wrong.
posted by snaparapans at 1:29 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 1:29 PM on July 19, 2013
If so, why not point to another individual who has been the object of a tip line.
You mean like Dzokhar Tsarenaev? Or the Unabomber? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or even Joe Arpaio?
posted by kagredon at 1:32 PM on July 19, 2013
You mean like Dzokhar Tsarenaev? Or the Unabomber? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or even Joe Arpaio?
posted by kagredon at 1:32 PM on July 19, 2013
Yeah, it is true rtha. I should have thought about all the wanted dead or alive posters, FBI most wanted etc. But I think that is different. When there is ample evidence that a wanted criminal has allegedly murdered many people (Bulger for instance), it is different from when there is no evidence that someone (Zimmerman) perpetuated a Hate Crime. Particularly setting this up when emotions are at a high point, seems really wrong.
"Investigating these crimes are okay, investigating these other crimes are not."
posted by kagredon at 1:32 PM on July 19, 2013
"Investigating these crimes are okay, investigating these other crimes are not."
posted by kagredon at 1:32 PM on July 19, 2013
You mean like Dzokhar Tsarenaev? Or the Unabomber? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or even Joe Arpaio?
The first three were fugitives. The last is a public official suspected of abusing his power, victimizing people who might otherwise be afraid of alerting authorities.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:36 PM on July 19, 2013
The first three were fugitives. The last is a public official suspected of abusing his power, victimizing people who might otherwise be afraid of alerting authorities.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:36 PM on July 19, 2013
The point is, it's not unusual for the DOJ or the FBI to solicit public information in cases they may prosecute. What would you have them do, put out a "nonspecific" hotline for the Trayvon Martin shooting? George Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting him, there's no point in pretending like that is an open question. The question is whether George Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights when he did so. It's bizarre to act as though the DOJ is doing something wrong by saying that Zimmerman is at the center of their investigation.
posted by kagredon at 1:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by kagredon at 1:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
BobbyVan: The first three were fugitives. The last is a public official suspected of abusing his power, victimizing people who might otherwise be afraid of alerting authorities.
The question was "why not point to another individual who has been the object of a tip line[?]", not "why not point to another individual who is not a fugitive, or a public official suspected of abusing his power, [and] victimizing people who might otherwise be afraid of alerting authorities?" But well done for trying to shift the goalposts.
posted by Len at 1:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
The question was "why not point to another individual who has been the object of a tip line[?]", not "why not point to another individual who is not a fugitive, or a public official suspected of abusing his power, [and] victimizing people who might otherwise be afraid of alerting authorities?" But well done for trying to shift the goalposts.
posted by Len at 1:41 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
My 2 cents on this DOJ thing…..
As evidenced from my participation in this thread, I am not a fan of GZ, his actions or the way the FL prosecutorsmanaged bungled this case. However, I think the DOJ is over-reaching on this one. Crowdsourcing "tips" in such a visible way will only lead to problems. As noted up-thread, this is not a search for an unsolved crime, but is a Thought Police™ Scavenger Hunt. Irrational, emotional behavior from persons who do not agree with the verdict will likely be the net result.
If in the least, they seem to asking for opinions, not facts. I think it likely to do far more harm than good. It is almost as if they are doing an end run around double jeopardy by casting a fishing net to see what gets caught in it then cherry picking a course of action based on what they reel in. If the DOJ feels a charge of whatever can stand on its own merits, they should proceed from that base, not by fomenting and stoking likely ill-will with an open bitch board.
There has to be a better way to deal with this and frankly, I am surprised this the best idea a top level agency in the country could come up with. It sounds so sophomoric (and that is me being nice.)
Heck, if this DOJ idea was a MeTa or FPP, it would be deleted.
posted by lampshade at 1:44 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
As evidenced from my participation in this thread, I am not a fan of GZ, his actions or the way the FL prosecutors
If in the least, they seem to asking for opinions, not facts. I think it likely to do far more harm than good. It is almost as if they are doing an end run around double jeopardy by casting a fishing net to see what gets caught in it then cherry picking a course of action based on what they reel in. If the DOJ feels a charge of whatever can stand on its own merits, they should proceed from that base, not by fomenting and stoking likely ill-will with an open bitch board.
There has to be a better way to deal with this and frankly, I am surprised this the best idea a top level agency in the country could come up with. It sounds so sophomoric (and that is me being nice.)
Heck, if this DOJ idea was a MeTa or FPP, it would be deleted.
posted by lampshade at 1:44 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think that every law enforcement technique or practice for investigating a potential crime or a person suspected of committing one is awesome and should be allowed. I don't know if the DoJ's tip line in this case is good technique or a bad one.
I do think it's weird that some people are acting like this tip line is some unprecedented step that must be a violation of someone's rights. Do you guys never read the papers? Off the top of my head, I can think of several local cases in the last couple of years where the police have asked the public to call if they have any information pertaining to a particular crime and the person suspected of committing it.
Maybe there's no evidence that Zimmerman committed a hate crime. How does the investigation work if they only person law enforcement can ask is Zimmerman? Part of investigating whether or not a crime was committed is getting people to come forward if they have information.
posted by rtha at 1:46 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
I do think it's weird that some people are acting like this tip line is some unprecedented step that must be a violation of someone's rights. Do you guys never read the papers? Off the top of my head, I can think of several local cases in the last couple of years where the police have asked the public to call if they have any information pertaining to a particular crime and the person suspected of committing it.
Maybe there's no evidence that Zimmerman committed a hate crime. How does the investigation work if they only person law enforcement can ask is Zimmerman? Part of investigating whether or not a crime was committed is getting people to come forward if they have information.
posted by rtha at 1:46 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Heck, if this DOJ idea was a MeTa or FPP, it would be deleted.
I am trying to imagine how this even makes sense and I'm not getting anywhere.
posted by kagredon at 1:47 PM on July 19, 2013
I am trying to imagine how this even makes sense and I'm not getting anywhere.
posted by kagredon at 1:47 PM on July 19, 2013
I could give a shit if the DOJ was soliciting tips and providing hugs in exchange. I'm sorry Obama (for understandable reasons) didn't go into Chris Christie/Samuel L. Jackson mode at the press conference, call a buncha people morons. Haters gonna hate, fuck 'em.
posted by angrycat at 1:51 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by angrycat at 1:51 PM on July 19, 2013
yea I think it's pretty understandable why Obama didn't do that.
posted by sweetkid at 1:56 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by sweetkid at 1:56 PM on July 19, 2013
It's bizarre to pretend that the DOJ is doing something wrong by saying that Zimmerman is at the center of their investigation.
I think it's bizarre to imagine what kind of information they'll come up with. Boiled to its essence, the Justice Department wants to know what George Zimmerman really thinks about black people.
The state of Florida failed to convict George Zimmerman of murder, and the public is justifiably outraged that the tragic death of Trayvon Martin might go unpunished. But the Department of Justice is "on it!" and has set up a tip line so concerned citizens can say that they once heard Zimmerman say the n-word, thereby giving our brave prosecutors the tools they need to put this guy we all hate in jail.
I actually think this is all for show, and the DOJ is mostly appeasing civil rights groups. Not sure if that makes the whole charade better or worse.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:56 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think it's bizarre to imagine what kind of information they'll come up with. Boiled to its essence, the Justice Department wants to know what George Zimmerman really thinks about black people.
The state of Florida failed to convict George Zimmerman of murder, and the public is justifiably outraged that the tragic death of Trayvon Martin might go unpunished. But the Department of Justice is "on it!" and has set up a tip line so concerned citizens can say that they once heard Zimmerman say the n-word, thereby giving our brave prosecutors the tools they need to put this guy we all hate in jail.
I actually think this is all for show, and the DOJ is mostly appeasing civil rights groups. Not sure if that makes the whole charade better or worse.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:56 PM on July 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Heck, if this DOJ idea was a MeTa or FPP, it would be deleted.
Bullshit, it would devolve into an alphabet thread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:58 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Bullshit, it would devolve into an alphabet thread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:58 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
How does the investigation work if they only person law enforcement can ask is Zimmerman? Part of investigating whether or not a crime was committed is getting people to come forward if they have information.
I think that the traditional method of gumshoe detective work, is best here. The earlier DOJ investigation, which this one appears to be a continuation of, interviewed 40 people who knew Zimmerman, work, neighbors, friends. They came up with no reason to pursue a federal hate crime.
So many are reeling over this case, to put out a National tip-line on Zimmerman just seems wrong to me now. For those who have evidence that Zimmerman was or is out to kill black people because of their race, wouldn't they just call the police on their own?
I would support a tip-line for anyone who feels racially profiled. But the DOJ would have to enlist an army to investigate each call, as racism is endemic in the US.
posted by snaparapans at 2:02 PM on July 19, 2013
I think that the traditional method of gumshoe detective work, is best here. The earlier DOJ investigation, which this one appears to be a continuation of, interviewed 40 people who knew Zimmerman, work, neighbors, friends. They came up with no reason to pursue a federal hate crime.
So many are reeling over this case, to put out a National tip-line on Zimmerman just seems wrong to me now. For those who have evidence that Zimmerman was or is out to kill black people because of their race, wouldn't they just call the police on their own?
I would support a tip-line for anyone who feels racially profiled. But the DOJ would have to enlist an army to investigate each call, as racism is endemic in the US.
posted by snaparapans at 2:02 PM on July 19, 2013
so basically BobbyVan you don't think anyone should ever be prosecuted for a hate crime, because it's "appeasement". got it.
posted by kagredon at 2:02 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 2:02 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Bullshit, it would devolve into an alphabet thread.
heh heh...or one of those recipe listing things
posted by lampshade at 2:03 PM on July 19, 2013
heh heh...or one of those recipe listing things
posted by lampshade at 2:03 PM on July 19, 2013
For those who have evidence that Zimmerman was or is out to kill black people because of their race, wouldn't they just call the police on their own?
People have been very clear in this thread why they wouldn't. Please read the thread.
posted by kagredon at 2:03 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
People have been very clear in this thread why they wouldn't. Please read the thread.
posted by kagredon at 2:03 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman acquittal stirs resentment and renews race debate: The civil rights movement has been reinvigorated by recent decisions from a Florida jury and the supreme court – and now plans for Martin Luther King's anniversary
posted by homunculus at 2:06 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by homunculus at 2:06 PM on July 19, 2013
Please read the thread. I have read both threads... So, I assume that you believe that people were too afraid to be honest with the FBI and Civil Rights Arm of the DOJ when they came to Sanford earlier, and now that a national tip-line is set up it will get those individuals, who know Zimmerman is a racist killer, to talk about it? OK. we disagree
posted by snaparapans at 2:09 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 2:09 PM on July 19, 2013
"I think it's bizarre to imagine what kind of information they'll come up with."
OK, dude, we get it, you have a bizarre imagination. You can let it drop now.
posted by klangklangston at 2:13 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
OK, dude, we get it, you have a bizarre imagination. You can let it drop now.
posted by klangklangston at 2:13 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
And I really liked the Obama statements, honestly.
posted by klangklangston at 2:13 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 2:13 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
But... Ray Kelly? Big disconnect, imo..
posted by snaparapans at 3:16 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by snaparapans at 3:16 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
I said: On the other hand, contributing to a culture wherein someone who reports knowledge of a possible crime to the authorities gets tagged as a horrible snitch is also not a direction that goes anywhere good.
And then you said: Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
Which makes me think that you believe that anyone who volunteers information about a possible crime is a snitch, and you are clear that snitches are bad, and also that anyone who thinks that a handwavey definition of "snitch" is problematic must support a neighborhood watch. Oh, and neighborhood watches are also bad. Have I got all that?
(FWIW, and I suspect for you that is not much, there is no formal neighborhood watch in my neighborhood, and beyond calling the cops when I've seen a crime in progress, I've made no moves to start one. Not because I think they're bad, but mostly because I'm lazy.)
posted by rtha at 3:48 PM on July 19, 2013
And then you said: Sounds like you support Neighborhood Watch.. Bad idea, imo. Sorry I cannot get on board with that.
Which makes me think that you believe that anyone who volunteers information about a possible crime is a snitch, and you are clear that snitches are bad, and also that anyone who thinks that a handwavey definition of "snitch" is problematic must support a neighborhood watch. Oh, and neighborhood watches are also bad. Have I got all that?
(FWIW, and I suspect for you that is not much, there is no formal neighborhood watch in my neighborhood, and beyond calling the cops when I've seen a crime in progress, I've made no moves to start one. Not because I think they're bad, but mostly because I'm lazy.)
posted by rtha at 3:48 PM on July 19, 2013
Which makes me think that you believe that anyone who volunteers information about a possible crime is a snitch, and you are clear that snitches are bad, and also that anyone who thinks that a handwavey definition of "snitch" is problematic must support a neighborhood watch. Oh, and neighborhood watches are also bad. Have I got all that?
I guess it vary's case by case. In this case, I really wish Zimmerman had another goal in life, than to protect his community from people he thought were bad guys. I think that people who get on the Watch get it wrong a lot, and are overzealous by nature.. just a hunch, but who would want that kind of job? I think people who call the cops are often wrong or have an agenda that is dishonest. For instance the Child Protective Services gets many anonymous calls from men who have gotten orders of protection against them. They call on their partner and say that they are abusing the children as an act of vengeance. If the person is poor, working two jobs, her place may not be neat as a pin.. you can imagine the havoc that causes.
As far as someone breaking into a window, I would tend to make a ruckus or see what was up rather than call the police. TBH, once I saw something like that and it was a neighbor, drunk, who lost his keys and decided to climb the fire escape, break a window, climb in and pass out on his couch. Actually I heard it when the police were on the roof.
He woke to several Police guns in his face. I went across the street to ID him so that the cops could leave. He said he had never been so terrified in his life. So someone called the cops, and my neighbor could have gotten shot. I don't know, I am sure that there are hypotheticals where it makes a lot of sense to call the cops, just not my first instinct.
posted by snaparapans at 4:06 PM on July 19, 2013
I guess it vary's case by case. In this case, I really wish Zimmerman had another goal in life, than to protect his community from people he thought were bad guys. I think that people who get on the Watch get it wrong a lot, and are overzealous by nature.. just a hunch, but who would want that kind of job? I think people who call the cops are often wrong or have an agenda that is dishonest. For instance the Child Protective Services gets many anonymous calls from men who have gotten orders of protection against them. They call on their partner and say that they are abusing the children as an act of vengeance. If the person is poor, working two jobs, her place may not be neat as a pin.. you can imagine the havoc that causes.
As far as someone breaking into a window, I would tend to make a ruckus or see what was up rather than call the police. TBH, once I saw something like that and it was a neighbor, drunk, who lost his keys and decided to climb the fire escape, break a window, climb in and pass out on his couch. Actually I heard it when the police were on the roof.
He woke to several Police guns in his face. I went across the street to ID him so that the cops could leave. He said he had never been so terrified in his life. So someone called the cops, and my neighbor could have gotten shot. I don't know, I am sure that there are hypotheticals where it makes a lot of sense to call the cops, just not my first instinct.
posted by snaparapans at 4:06 PM on July 19, 2013
But... Ray Kelly? Big disconnect, imo..
Ray Kelly Wants Stop And Frisk To "Instill Fear" In Minorities, State Senator Testifies
posted by homunculus at 4:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ray Kelly Wants Stop And Frisk To "Instill Fear" In Minorities, State Senator Testifies
posted by homunculus at 4:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman had to leave his car to continue watching Trayvon. If you look at the Google map of the complex you can see that Trayvon's route home, once through the main gate, quickly took him off the road and along a footpath with buildings either side, at which point Zimmerman lost track of him. You can't see that path from the road because there is a building in the way.
Given the timeline and the very short distances involved, Trayvon could easily have just gone home along that path while Zimmerman was standing around talking to 911. He actually had time to stroll all the way home down the footpath, change his mind and then walk back to the point on the path where the fight occurred. A juror has already wondered aloud why Trayvon didn't just go home and lock the door.
GZ says that all he did was observe, until Trayvon reappeared and attacked him, GZ was soon badly losing the fight and was finally compelled to use his weapon
If you read GZ's account, given last year in a TV interview, it's self-consistent and agrees with the physical evidence. I see no reason not to believe it.
Some people find it hard to believe that Trayvon attacked GZ.
If you consider Trayvon's then-current pattern of violent behavior at his high school though, it is completely in-character. There were a lot of fights, a vendetta against a "snitch", and even an assault on a teacher. As both a kind of informer and an authority figure, Zimmerman was an obvious target for the troubled youth's attack.
I just wish GZ had been carrying a taser, not a 9mm, or even better that either one had had the amount of sense required to calm the situation and talk to each other for a few seconds. A tiny exchange of words was all that was in fact required.
posted by w0mbat at 4:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Given the timeline and the very short distances involved, Trayvon could easily have just gone home along that path while Zimmerman was standing around talking to 911. He actually had time to stroll all the way home down the footpath, change his mind and then walk back to the point on the path where the fight occurred. A juror has already wondered aloud why Trayvon didn't just go home and lock the door.
GZ says that all he did was observe, until Trayvon reappeared and attacked him, GZ was soon badly losing the fight and was finally compelled to use his weapon
If you read GZ's account, given last year in a TV interview, it's self-consistent and agrees with the physical evidence. I see no reason not to believe it.
Some people find it hard to believe that Trayvon attacked GZ.
If you consider Trayvon's then-current pattern of violent behavior at his high school though, it is completely in-character. There were a lot of fights, a vendetta against a "snitch", and even an assault on a teacher. As both a kind of informer and an authority figure, Zimmerman was an obvious target for the troubled youth's attack.
I just wish GZ had been carrying a taser, not a 9mm, or even better that either one had had the amount of sense required to calm the situation and talk to each other for a few seconds. A tiny exchange of words was all that was in fact required.
posted by w0mbat at 4:12 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
We've already been over why Trayvon wouldn't have lead a grown man stalking him, who turned out to be armed, to his home. It was said last year, it was said in recent threads, and then yesterday Trayvon's mother said the same thing on television.
For the last time, a lot of us don't believe in leading those following you, to where you live. Zimmerman wouldn't even give out his address while on the phone with 911, for fear that the person he was chasing would hear. Why would anyone expect a teenager to lead a grown man chasing, to where they live?
Why? Because black males don't have fear. They don't get afraid. They don't have emotions and feelings. Jeez.
posted by cashman at 4:17 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
For the last time, a lot of us don't believe in leading those following you, to where you live. Zimmerman wouldn't even give out his address while on the phone with 911, for fear that the person he was chasing would hear. Why would anyone expect a teenager to lead a grown man chasing, to where they live?
Why? Because black males don't have fear. They don't get afraid. They don't have emotions and feelings. Jeez.
posted by cashman at 4:17 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
Jesus Christ, this is like one of those infinite platformers where after you've beaten each boss, they start coming at you again in the same order with the same set of moves and a palette swap.
posted by kagredon at 4:18 PM on July 19, 2013 [38 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 4:18 PM on July 19, 2013 [38 favorites]
A juror has already wondered aloud why Trayvon didn't just go home and lock the door.
I've always been told you never lead someone following you back to your home, but instead go to a public place that's well lit and try to get help. Mind, I've been given that advice in the context of how to avoid sexual assault (I'm a white woman).
posted by immlass at 4:27 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've always been told you never lead someone following you back to your home, but instead go to a public place that's well lit and try to get help. Mind, I've been given that advice in the context of how to avoid sexual assault (I'm a white woman).
posted by immlass at 4:27 PM on July 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The color of Martin's skin had zero to do with it.
You know, this has already been quoted a bunch of times. This post of "the situation with all the BS stripped away" and i let it marinate all day. I had work to do, and i wanted to think about it for a minute.
What it all boils down to and comes back to, with, as you, said, "all the BS stripped away" is that you're doing the same damn thing so many people have done all over this thread. The same thing the state did, the same thing Martin's parents did for fear of backlash for "bringing drama to the situation" or something, the same thing so many people have done explicitly or implicitly.
Decide that "race is off the table" and that it just isn't relevant to a rational, logical discussion of what happened here. As if it's hysterics or trolling or some kind of extra needless shitmongering being added to an already messed up situation to just make it more heated and television plot like or something.
Clicking your fucking heels together and wishing that race had nothing to do with this doesn't make it so, despite the fact that so many people who either quietly think that Zimmerman's racist bullshit beliefs were logical, or that racism is over this is 2013 duh want it to be.
Every time someone says something like this it seems like the same weird pushback i see every day among nerdy dudes on reddit and in real life whenever sexism gets brought up, as if it's some sort of "unfair" trump card to shut down intelligent discussion and declare instant victory.
People get intensely defensive whenever something like this comes up. And the correct reaction is not to go "Well lets not bring it up because it'll muddy the discussion" but rather "Lets examine while these people started squirming in their chairs when accused of this".
And i think it's pretty funny that people think it's some "overused" term. People generally think long and hard before calling someone out as being a fucking racist(or sexist, or anything *ist really for that matter) because of how much blowback they know it'll stir up, and how hard they know that person is going to push back or try and minimize what they're saying and discredit and just generally trash them. This shit doesn't just get thrown around, especially in Big Boy situations like this. It's pretty much an act of war and people know it.
So yea, can we not only quit saying this isn't about race, but can people fucking knock it off with acting like cries of racist behavior and a racist justice system are histrionics? I know the second one is a dream, but cmon really on the first one.
Also, kagredon, It's amazed me how many of my absolute favorite posters on this site i've watched proverbially scream themselves ragged or do the MeFi equivalent of a fillibuster and just marathon reply to people in this thread with calm, intelligent, awesome respones. And yet yea, it's like one of those fucking games. As you say.
posted by emptythought at 4:43 PM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
You know, this has already been quoted a bunch of times. This post of "the situation with all the BS stripped away" and i let it marinate all day. I had work to do, and i wanted to think about it for a minute.
What it all boils down to and comes back to, with, as you, said, "all the BS stripped away" is that you're doing the same damn thing so many people have done all over this thread. The same thing the state did, the same thing Martin's parents did for fear of backlash for "bringing drama to the situation" or something, the same thing so many people have done explicitly or implicitly.
Decide that "race is off the table" and that it just isn't relevant to a rational, logical discussion of what happened here. As if it's hysterics or trolling or some kind of extra needless shitmongering being added to an already messed up situation to just make it more heated and television plot like or something.
Clicking your fucking heels together and wishing that race had nothing to do with this doesn't make it so, despite the fact that so many people who either quietly think that Zimmerman's racist bullshit beliefs were logical, or that racism is over this is 2013 duh want it to be.
Every time someone says something like this it seems like the same weird pushback i see every day among nerdy dudes on reddit and in real life whenever sexism gets brought up, as if it's some sort of "unfair" trump card to shut down intelligent discussion and declare instant victory.
People get intensely defensive whenever something like this comes up. And the correct reaction is not to go "Well lets not bring it up because it'll muddy the discussion" but rather "Lets examine while these people started squirming in their chairs when accused of this".
And i think it's pretty funny that people think it's some "overused" term. People generally think long and hard before calling someone out as being a fucking racist(or sexist, or anything *ist really for that matter) because of how much blowback they know it'll stir up, and how hard they know that person is going to push back or try and minimize what they're saying and discredit and just generally trash them. This shit doesn't just get thrown around, especially in Big Boy situations like this. It's pretty much an act of war and people know it.
So yea, can we not only quit saying this isn't about race, but can people fucking knock it off with acting like cries of racist behavior and a racist justice system are histrionics? I know the second one is a dream, but cmon really on the first one.
Also, kagredon, It's amazed me how many of my absolute favorite posters on this site i've watched proverbially scream themselves ragged or do the MeFi equivalent of a fillibuster and just marathon reply to people in this thread with calm, intelligent, awesome respones. And yet yea, it's like one of those fucking games. As you say.
posted by emptythought at 4:43 PM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
actually, that's the first I've seen that Hannity Interview with Zimmerman. So as much as I have no desire to rehash this once again with a Zimmerman apologist, I 'm glad to read that link. It goes even further to affirm my already pretty rock-solid belief that Zimmerman is lying. His story is flawless in it's rationalization of his every action, yet logically inconsistent at every turn.
It's pretty much an higher stakes version of a little kid's "see, what had happened was..." story of how even though he was playing ball in the house, the broken lamp is in no way his fault. Yet for some bizarre reason adults are choosing to believe it.
posted by billyfleetwood at 4:52 PM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's pretty much an higher stakes version of a little kid's "see, what had happened was..." story of how even though he was playing ball in the house, the broken lamp is in no way his fault. Yet for some bizarre reason adults are choosing to believe it.
posted by billyfleetwood at 4:52 PM on July 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
Jesus Christ, this is like one of those infinite platformers where after you've beaten each boss, they start coming at you again in the same order with the same set of moves and a palette swap.
Thank you civil rights advocates! But our justice is in another courtroom!
posted by zombieflanders at 5:18 PM on July 19, 2013 [12 favorites]
Thank you civil rights advocates! But our justice is in another courtroom!
posted by zombieflanders at 5:18 PM on July 19, 2013 [12 favorites]
to just going back to mocking viligante gun owners for a moment, just think about how fun it's gonna get when say Florida is devastated by climate change. I mean, the NRA should get on the climate change bus now to balance out its other fucked-up-ness: "Folks, we know that nature is going to kick our fucking asses up and down the block, so get your whatever gun now and think about moving to higher ground." Or maybe that's happened already and I missed it.
posted by angrycat at 5:24 PM on July 19, 2013
posted by angrycat at 5:24 PM on July 19, 2013
A tiny exchange of words was all that was in fact required.
In fact, not even that. Because Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. Nothing was required except that he be left alone by someone who went out at night with a gun.
posted by billiebee at 5:33 PM on July 19, 2013 [11 favorites]
In fact, not even that. Because Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. Nothing was required except that he be left alone by someone who went out at night with a gun.
posted by billiebee at 5:33 PM on July 19, 2013 [11 favorites]
Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of Stand Your Ground
posted by homunculus at 6:21 PM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 6:21 PM on July 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
w0mbat: or even better that either one had had the amount of sense required to calm the situation and talk to each other for a few seconds. A tiny exchange of words was all that was in fact required.
billiebee:In fact, not even that. Because Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. Nothing was required except that he be left alone by someone who went out at night with a gun.
Thank you!
Nothing personal to you w0mbat, but just about the general idea. If I'm walking down the street and a stranger gets it into his head that it's okay for him to follow me or stalk me; that he's entitled to know what I'm doing, or where I'm going; that I need to explain myself to him in any way, he is WAY out of line. If he gets it into his head that "all that's required" from me is ___; that he just wants a tiny little ___ and it's my fault what happens if I don't provide it to him immediately... he can go take a flying leap. It's a free country and IMO Trayvon was not responsible for giving Zimmerman anything no matter how Zimmerman was acting, because Zimmerman was entitled to nothing, and was way out of line to expect any information was owed to him.
posted by cairdeas at 10:19 PM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
billiebee:In fact, not even that. Because Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong. Nothing was required except that he be left alone by someone who went out at night with a gun.
Thank you!
Nothing personal to you w0mbat, but just about the general idea. If I'm walking down the street and a stranger gets it into his head that it's okay for him to follow me or stalk me; that he's entitled to know what I'm doing, or where I'm going; that I need to explain myself to him in any way, he is WAY out of line. If he gets it into his head that "all that's required" from me is ___; that he just wants a tiny little ___ and it's my fault what happens if I don't provide it to him immediately... he can go take a flying leap. It's a free country and IMO Trayvon was not responsible for giving Zimmerman anything no matter how Zimmerman was acting, because Zimmerman was entitled to nothing, and was way out of line to expect any information was owed to him.
posted by cairdeas at 10:19 PM on July 19, 2013 [18 favorites]
Given the timeline and the very short distances involved instructions given and otherwise general common sense, Trayvon George could easily have just gone home along that path while Zimmerman was standing around talking to 911 stayed in his car and let 911 do its job. He actually had time to stroll all the way home down the footpath, change his mind and then walk back to the point on the path where the fight occurred could have just kept an eye on him from a distance if he was that suspicious and report to the dispatcher what was happening. A juror The rest of the world has already wondered aloud why Trayvon George didn't just go home and lock the door stay in the car.
Some people find it hard to believe that Trayvon attacked GZ.
If you considerTrayvon's George's then-current pattern long history of violent behavior at his high school though and racial profiling , it is completely in-character legitimate to have these doubts. There were a lot of fights, a vendetta against a "snitch", domestic abuse charges, allegations of racism by a family member and even an assault on a teacher police officer. As both a kind of informer and an authority figure person with a history of violence and a record of at least 46 calls to 911 reporting black males, Zimmerman was an obvious target for the troubled youth's attack obviously a deeply troubled and paranoid man.
posted by triggerfinger at 10:26 PM on July 19, 2013 [22 favorites]
Some people find it hard to believe that Trayvon attacked GZ.
If you consider
posted by triggerfinger at 10:26 PM on July 19, 2013 [22 favorites]
And you know, it's so funny. It really goes to show what irrational grasping-at-straws victim blaming can be.
Because if you're a woman, and someone is stalking you down the street, there are people who will scoff and ask, "Well, why did you let yourself be a victim, why didn't you stand up for yourself. You let him think you were an easy target. Why didn't you just turn around and yell for him to leave you alone?? Why didn't you just kick him in the nuts??"
There's a story, I think it's in the Power of Fear, of a woman who was followed into her building by a strange man. The man insisted on helping her with her groceries and she let him even though he scared her. And then when they got up to her apartment, he DID force his way in, and he raped her and was clearly planning to kill her. And so people think, "Why did you let him do that?? Why did you let him follow you?? Why did you let him into your apartment? Why didn't you DO SOMETHING???"
But for Trayvon, people are like, well if he did do something, that makes it ALL HIS FAULT. Like if Trayvon went back and socked Zimmerman one for stalking him down the street, it's his fault for Zimmerman killing him. And if I just kept walking to my place and Zimmerman forced his way in and killed ME, it would be my fault for not socking him one at least! I feel like a lot of people would be like, what a stupid idiot she was for leading that man straight to her place and just letting him in and not even putting up a fight. Maybe she WANTED him to come in, maybe she was a loose woman!!!
It's so so so pointless.
posted by cairdeas at 10:30 PM on July 19, 2013 [28 favorites]
Because if you're a woman, and someone is stalking you down the street, there are people who will scoff and ask, "Well, why did you let yourself be a victim, why didn't you stand up for yourself. You let him think you were an easy target. Why didn't you just turn around and yell for him to leave you alone?? Why didn't you just kick him in the nuts??"
There's a story, I think it's in the Power of Fear, of a woman who was followed into her building by a strange man. The man insisted on helping her with her groceries and she let him even though he scared her. And then when they got up to her apartment, he DID force his way in, and he raped her and was clearly planning to kill her. And so people think, "Why did you let him do that?? Why did you let him follow you?? Why did you let him into your apartment? Why didn't you DO SOMETHING???"
But for Trayvon, people are like, well if he did do something, that makes it ALL HIS FAULT. Like if Trayvon went back and socked Zimmerman one for stalking him down the street, it's his fault for Zimmerman killing him. And if I just kept walking to my place and Zimmerman forced his way in and killed ME, it would be my fault for not socking him one at least! I feel like a lot of people would be like, what a stupid idiot she was for leading that man straight to her place and just letting him in and not even putting up a fight. Maybe she WANTED him to come in, maybe she was a loose woman!!!
It's so so so pointless.
posted by cairdeas at 10:30 PM on July 19, 2013 [28 favorites]
I'm a not white woman but I have absolutely been followed and did not go straight home in any instance. Because I didn't want to be assaulted in my home.
posted by sweetkid at 10:39 PM on July 19, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 10:39 PM on July 19, 2013 [13 favorites]
Also, to be perfectly honest...
It makes me think about this one time I was out in town late at night and genuinely feared for my life from a stranger.
I was waiting at a bus stop in Queens sometime after midnight, coming back from a friend's house, the bus stop was under this bridge, it was pretty deserted out, there were only a few people scattered on the street and an all-night donut shop a little ways away.
This guy started talking in this very insistent and pushy way. He was talking about how he was a pimp and I could make a lot of money, and he wanted me to get in his car and we would go made money. I was 21 years old. He kept at me and at me. I kept saying "no, no," and he got more and more insistent. I was scared out of my mind. I had a feeling he might get physical at any moment. I turned and walked away from the bus stop and I made it the few yards away to the all-night donut shop, only a couple people in there too. He followed me. He kept at me in my face, pushing and pushing. I had my hand on my phone to dial 911. I was thinking that he could knock the phone out of my hand before I could do anything, that he could pull out a gun and just shoot me, just shoot all of us. I was terrified even if I completed the 911 call the cops wouldn't get there in time, and not only that I would have to say on the phone, in front of this man, why I was calling. It was the closest I had ever felt, in my life to that point, to the possibility that I might be within seconds of being murdered.
This guy was a foot taller than me and much heavier. You know what? If I felt like I had a decent chance of winning, I would have beat the shit out of him. I would have. The ONLY reason I didn't is because I'm quite sure I would really have died. But if I felt like that was a good way of protecting myself, I would have, because in that situation at it was, I felt I had ZERO way of protecting myself.
Would you blame me for it, if I had done that? Remember, the guy never actually got to the point of touching me...
And there have been so many times since then, with street harassment and all the rest of it, where I've just had to keep going, and be neutral, or nice, in scary situations, not as scary as that, but scary. And if just knocking those men to the ground was a realistic option for me? Would I just say, "no, it's better for me to just stay sweet and be submissively assaulted instead."???
They tell women we should take self-defense classes. So, now people are turning around to say if you use physical self defense, it's your fault if you get killed?
posted by cairdeas at 10:55 PM on July 19, 2013 [31 favorites]
It makes me think about this one time I was out in town late at night and genuinely feared for my life from a stranger.
I was waiting at a bus stop in Queens sometime after midnight, coming back from a friend's house, the bus stop was under this bridge, it was pretty deserted out, there were only a few people scattered on the street and an all-night donut shop a little ways away.
This guy started talking in this very insistent and pushy way. He was talking about how he was a pimp and I could make a lot of money, and he wanted me to get in his car and we would go made money. I was 21 years old. He kept at me and at me. I kept saying "no, no," and he got more and more insistent. I was scared out of my mind. I had a feeling he might get physical at any moment. I turned and walked away from the bus stop and I made it the few yards away to the all-night donut shop, only a couple people in there too. He followed me. He kept at me in my face, pushing and pushing. I had my hand on my phone to dial 911. I was thinking that he could knock the phone out of my hand before I could do anything, that he could pull out a gun and just shoot me, just shoot all of us. I was terrified even if I completed the 911 call the cops wouldn't get there in time, and not only that I would have to say on the phone, in front of this man, why I was calling. It was the closest I had ever felt, in my life to that point, to the possibility that I might be within seconds of being murdered.
This guy was a foot taller than me and much heavier. You know what? If I felt like I had a decent chance of winning, I would have beat the shit out of him. I would have. The ONLY reason I didn't is because I'm quite sure I would really have died. But if I felt like that was a good way of protecting myself, I would have, because in that situation at it was, I felt I had ZERO way of protecting myself.
Would you blame me for it, if I had done that? Remember, the guy never actually got to the point of touching me...
And there have been so many times since then, with street harassment and all the rest of it, where I've just had to keep going, and be neutral, or nice, in scary situations, not as scary as that, but scary. And if just knocking those men to the ground was a realistic option for me? Would I just say, "no, it's better for me to just stay sweet and be submissively assaulted instead."???
They tell women we should take self-defense classes. So, now people are turning around to say if you use physical self defense, it's your fault if you get killed?
posted by cairdeas at 10:55 PM on July 19, 2013 [31 favorites]
We've already been over why Trayvon wouldn't have lead a grown man stalking him, who turned out to be armed, to his home. It was said last year, it was said in recent threads, and then yesterday Trayvon's mother said the same thing on television.
Rachel Jeantel makes it clear that Martin knew exactly what the "creepy-ass cracka" Zimmerman was: a self-appointed authority figure who was disrespecting him (Jeantel's own suggestion that GZ was a "rapist" was brushed off as silliness). Martin obviously double-backed to deliver some "whoop-ass". He could have gone anywhere. He went right back to Zimmerman's location.
posted by dgaicun at 11:03 PM on July 19, 2013
Rachel Jeantel makes it clear that Martin knew exactly what the "creepy-ass cracka" Zimmerman was: a self-appointed authority figure who was disrespecting him (Jeantel's own suggestion that GZ was a "rapist" was brushed off as silliness). Martin obviously double-backed to deliver some "whoop-ass". He could have gone anywhere. He went right back to Zimmerman's location.
posted by dgaicun at 11:03 PM on July 19, 2013
obviously
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:49 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:49 PM on July 19, 2013 [9 favorites]
One person's "disrespecting him" is another's "preparing to abduct, torture and hang".
I'm still flabbergasted that anyone would question the mortal fear of being lynched an black teen would have under these circumstances, and that in their discounting of that fear, attribute him with the IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR of "deliver(ing) some "whoop-ass".
That's just "The Negro Went CRAZY" dressed up for Sunday Dinner.
This whole thing has (d)evolved into a litmus-test of sorts. Either you can empathize with the victim, or you blame the victim. And that says volumes about a person.
posted by mikelieman at 12:58 AM on July 20, 2013 [21 favorites]
I'm still flabbergasted that anyone would question the mortal fear of being lynched an black teen would have under these circumstances, and that in their discounting of that fear, attribute him with the IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR of "deliver(ing) some "whoop-ass".
That's just "The Negro Went CRAZY" dressed up for Sunday Dinner.
This whole thing has (d)evolved into a litmus-test of sorts. Either you can empathize with the victim, or you blame the victim. And that says volumes about a person.
posted by mikelieman at 12:58 AM on July 20, 2013 [21 favorites]
A Rorschach test, maybe. The patterns people see reveal their world view.
posted by jaduncan at 1:53 AM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 1:53 AM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR of "deliver(ing) some "whoop-ass".
"Irrational" may be your subjective evaluation of such a behavior, but it is certainly not uncommon for humans (especially young men, especially southern young men) to respond to perceived slights with violence. The logic is that in violent cultures your reputation for standing up for yourself is what keeps you from being bullied. It's a conditioned response. If the psychology behind fighting is really that alien to you, then read Richard Nisbett's Culture Of Honor: The Psychology Of Violence In The South.
If Martin was scared of being lynched then his fear response must've been fight instead of flight, since he double backed to the area near Zimmerman's car, before administering the whoop-ass.
posted by dgaicun at 2:25 AM on July 20, 2013
"Irrational" may be your subjective evaluation of such a behavior, but it is certainly not uncommon for humans (especially young men, especially southern young men) to respond to perceived slights with violence. The logic is that in violent cultures your reputation for standing up for yourself is what keeps you from being bullied. It's a conditioned response. If the psychology behind fighting is really that alien to you, then read Richard Nisbett's Culture Of Honor: The Psychology Of Violence In The South.
If Martin was scared of being lynched then his fear response must've been fight instead of flight, since he double backed to the area near Zimmerman's car, before administering the whoop-ass.
posted by dgaicun at 2:25 AM on July 20, 2013
you cannot seriously be arguing that this happened because of Trayvon Martin's "violent culture"
that's not even dogwhistling anymore, it's regular whistling.
posted by kagredon at 3:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [22 favorites]
that's not even dogwhistling anymore, it's regular whistling.
posted by kagredon at 3:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [22 favorites]
Well, as I noted, it's a young male thing and a southern thing. But in her interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel also alludes to it for Martin more specifically, suggesting that the white jury would have trouble understanding the cultural context of the assault:
They don't understand, they understand -- he was just bashed or he was killed. When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass. You do that (INAUDIBLE). That's what it is.
Basically she's suggesting that lethal force was unnecessary because a whoop-ass is a restrained act of violence that acts like a statement. Murder is not the intent, as people unfamiliar with ritual violence might assume.
Of course the problem with the personal firearm is that it potentially elevates any generic scuffle into a life or death struggle, just by its very presence in the situation.
posted by dgaicun at 4:14 AM on July 20, 2013
They don't understand, they understand -- he was just bashed or he was killed. When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass. You do that (INAUDIBLE). That's what it is.
Basically she's suggesting that lethal force was unnecessary because a whoop-ass is a restrained act of violence that acts like a statement. Murder is not the intent, as people unfamiliar with ritual violence might assume.
Of course the problem with the personal firearm is that it potentially elevates any generic scuffle into a life or death struggle, just by its very presence in the situation.
posted by dgaicun at 4:14 AM on July 20, 2013
If we're appealing to authority, it's probably worth throwing in Randolf Roth's American Homicide, which critiques the idea of the "culture of honor" as an oversimplification of a nexus of forces acting on American culture.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:18 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:18 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Murder is not the intent, as people unfamiliar with ritual violence might assume.
LOL. Gentle, tender little George Zimmerman, a person as unfamiliar with ritual violence as a newborn babe, a fawn, or a flower in a walled garden. He must have needed his smelling salts at the very idea! Gun-owning, MMA fighting, cop-punching, night-"patrolling" George Zimmerman. He was just too unfamiliar with the ritual violence being directed at his tender self. After all, it's a quirky Southern thing, and only one of them was "Southern." Right?
It is hard to believe, after that line, that you even believe what you're saying.
posted by cairdeas at 4:22 AM on July 20, 2013 [16 favorites]
LOL. Gentle, tender little George Zimmerman, a person as unfamiliar with ritual violence as a newborn babe, a fawn, or a flower in a walled garden. He must have needed his smelling salts at the very idea! Gun-owning, MMA fighting, cop-punching, night-"patrolling" George Zimmerman. He was just too unfamiliar with the ritual violence being directed at his tender self. After all, it's a quirky Southern thing, and only one of them was "Southern." Right?
It is hard to believe, after that line, that you even believe what you're saying.
posted by cairdeas at 4:22 AM on July 20, 2013 [16 favorites]
I'm amused because frequently on Metafilter when people talk about Southern Culture they are only referring to white people as southerners and seem to exclude the 49% or so of the population of the south who are not white. Here, the opposite seems to be happening.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:48 AM on July 20, 2013
posted by hydropsyche at 5:48 AM on July 20, 2013
The best part is how we can't trust a single word that comes out of Rachel Jeantel's mouth unless it makes Trayvon Martin on look like a crazy ( and duplicitous) Negro.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:09 AM on July 20, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:09 AM on July 20, 2013 [6 favorites]
Here, the opposite seems to be happening.
No. Both whites and blacks engage in more violent behavior in the south than they do in the north. Blacks engage in a lot more violent behavior than whites. A partial and overlapping cause is a stronger culture of honor, where perceived slights are often redressed in a heated or physical confrontation.
posted by dgaicun at 6:10 AM on July 20, 2013
No. Both whites and blacks engage in more violent behavior in the south than they do in the north. Blacks engage in a lot more violent behavior than whites. A partial and overlapping cause is a stronger culture of honor, where perceived slights are often redressed in a heated or physical confrontation.
posted by dgaicun at 6:10 AM on July 20, 2013
This whole thing has (d)evolved into a litmus-test of sorts. Either you can empathize with the victim, or you blame the victim. And that says volumes about a person.
Your opinion on the media circus du jour determines your moral worth as an individual.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:12 AM on July 20, 2013
Your opinion on the media circus du jour determines your moral worth as an individual.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:12 AM on July 20, 2013
A partial and overlapping cause is a stronger culture of honor
I suppose this explains why Shreveport, LA went from not having a gang violence problem to having a gang violence problem when members of the Crips and Bloods migrated there from Los Angeles.
posted by localroger at 6:23 AM on July 20, 2013
I suppose this explains why Shreveport, LA went from not having a gang violence problem to having a gang violence problem when members of the Crips and Bloods migrated there from Los Angeles.
posted by localroger at 6:23 AM on July 20, 2013
We've already been over why Trayvon wouldn't have lead a grown man stalking him
--
For the last time, a lot of us don't believe in leading those following you, to where you live. Zimmerman wouldn't even give out his address while on the phone with 911, for fear that the person he was chasing would hear. Why would anyone expect a teenager to lead a grown man chasing, to where they live?
But this is speculation, and you're talking about it like it's settled fact. Rachel Jeantel testified that he did go home. The question, and I raised it up above and no one answered it, is why Martin came back to the place where Zimmerman had lost sight of him. And it's not that he didn't have every right to do so, it's just that his doing so suggests he was not "in mortal fear of being lynched."
When Martin started running, Zimmerman was still in his car, and Martin was out of his sight within seconds and would/could have been at his father's house easily in 30 seconds. The confrontation didn't take place until four minutes later.
In the blog post mikelieman quoted above, Michelle Meyer said "I paid no attention to this case prior to the trial (which I increasingly think gives me a different perspective on the verdict than many who consumed lots of pretrial media on the case but little of the actual trial)." I feel the same way. There are a LOT of assumptions about the case that hardened into "fact" in people's minds before the trial. If you actually listen to the testimony (not just read the media reports), it becomes apparent that some of those assumptions are flat wrong.
But for Trayvon, people are like, well if he did do something, that makes it ALL HIS FAULT.
cairdeas, no one is saying it is all Trayvon Martin's fault that he got killed, or that it is his fault at all. At least not in this thread. This and the "Crazy NEGRO" framing that mikelieman keeps bringing up are not fair responses to the arguments that have been made here. It's actually possible to believe that Martin completely instigated the fight but that his doing so was justifiable or at least understandable.
posted by torticat at 6:32 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
--
For the last time, a lot of us don't believe in leading those following you, to where you live. Zimmerman wouldn't even give out his address while on the phone with 911, for fear that the person he was chasing would hear. Why would anyone expect a teenager to lead a grown man chasing, to where they live?
But this is speculation, and you're talking about it like it's settled fact. Rachel Jeantel testified that he did go home. The question, and I raised it up above and no one answered it, is why Martin came back to the place where Zimmerman had lost sight of him. And it's not that he didn't have every right to do so, it's just that his doing so suggests he was not "in mortal fear of being lynched."
When Martin started running, Zimmerman was still in his car, and Martin was out of his sight within seconds and would/could have been at his father's house easily in 30 seconds. The confrontation didn't take place until four minutes later.
In the blog post mikelieman quoted above, Michelle Meyer said "I paid no attention to this case prior to the trial (which I increasingly think gives me a different perspective on the verdict than many who consumed lots of pretrial media on the case but little of the actual trial)." I feel the same way. There are a LOT of assumptions about the case that hardened into "fact" in people's minds before the trial. If you actually listen to the testimony (not just read the media reports), it becomes apparent that some of those assumptions are flat wrong.
But for Trayvon, people are like, well if he did do something, that makes it ALL HIS FAULT.
cairdeas, no one is saying it is all Trayvon Martin's fault that he got killed, or that it is his fault at all. At least not in this thread. This and the "Crazy NEGRO" framing that mikelieman keeps bringing up are not fair responses to the arguments that have been made here. It's actually possible to believe that Martin completely instigated the fight but that his doing so was justifiable or at least understandable.
posted by torticat at 6:32 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
dgaicun: Trayvon Martin grew up in Miami. I doubt you'll find a single pop social science book that includes Miami in "The South". The culture of Miami is much more the culture of the Caribbean crossed with the culture of New York City. I encourage you to look for another pop social science book to explain the Zimmerman murder case. One about racism would probably be helpful.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:51 AM on July 20, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 6:51 AM on July 20, 2013 [11 favorites]
Your opinion on the media circus du jour determines your moral worth as an individual.
Counter-intuitive in general, but in this case pretty much, yes!
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:52 AM on July 20, 2013
Counter-intuitive in general, but in this case pretty much, yes!
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:52 AM on July 20, 2013
But in her interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel also alludes to it for Martin more specifically, suggesting that the white jury would have trouble understanding the cultural context of the assault
On this subject of culture (and related to what I was just saying about the usefulness of watching the actual testimony).... Juror B37 was castigated above for saying re "cracker,"
“Trayvon probably said that” but said she didn’t “think it’s really racial. I think it’s just every day life. The type of life that they live, and how they’re living, in the environment that they’re living in.”
But in the trial, the prosecution asked Jeantel if calling people "cracker" is a cultural thing. The defense followed up with this exchange:
WEST: The other thing I wanted to ask you about is Mr. De la Rionda said in reference to Trayvon Martin saying "creepy-ass cracker," and using the "n" word, that people like -- people speak like that in your culture. Did you hear that?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
WEST: Well, what culture is that where people describe other people as "creepy-ass crackers"?
JEANTEL: (INAUDIBLE).
WEST: Do you understand what I mean by the culture, the culture that you were raised in, the culture that you live in?
JEANTEL: The area I was raised in you're trying to say?
WEST: Right. I'll say it this way. Do people that you live around and with call white people "creepy-ass crackers"?
JEANTEL: Not "creepy," but "cracker," yes.
WEST: So the "creepy" is the pervert part that you were talking about?
JEANTEL: Yeah.
WEST: So forget that for a second. You're saying that in the culture that you live in, in your community, people call -- people there call white people "crackers"?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
Clearly, when Juror B37 was asked what she thought about the "cracker" issue, her reply reflected what had been asked and answered in Jeantel's testimony (not to mention that the juror believed RL's testimony about this). But without the context, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the juror was using racist "othering" language.
posted by torticat at 6:58 AM on July 20, 2013
On this subject of culture (and related to what I was just saying about the usefulness of watching the actual testimony).... Juror B37 was castigated above for saying re "cracker,"
“Trayvon probably said that” but said she didn’t “think it’s really racial. I think it’s just every day life. The type of life that they live, and how they’re living, in the environment that they’re living in.”
But in the trial, the prosecution asked Jeantel if calling people "cracker" is a cultural thing. The defense followed up with this exchange:
WEST: The other thing I wanted to ask you about is Mr. De la Rionda said in reference to Trayvon Martin saying "creepy-ass cracker," and using the "n" word, that people like -- people speak like that in your culture. Did you hear that?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
WEST: Well, what culture is that where people describe other people as "creepy-ass crackers"?
JEANTEL: (INAUDIBLE).
WEST: Do you understand what I mean by the culture, the culture that you were raised in, the culture that you live in?
JEANTEL: The area I was raised in you're trying to say?
WEST: Right. I'll say it this way. Do people that you live around and with call white people "creepy-ass crackers"?
JEANTEL: Not "creepy," but "cracker," yes.
WEST: So the "creepy" is the pervert part that you were talking about?
JEANTEL: Yeah.
WEST: So forget that for a second. You're saying that in the culture that you live in, in your community, people call -- people there call white people "crackers"?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
Clearly, when Juror B37 was asked what she thought about the "cracker" issue, her reply reflected what had been asked and answered in Jeantel's testimony (not to mention that the juror believed RL's testimony about this). But without the context, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the juror was using racist "othering" language.
posted by torticat at 6:58 AM on July 20, 2013
But this is speculation, and you're talking about it like it's settled fact
Every single claim of Zimmerman's is speculation, too, given the lack of actual evidence to support them. But that doesn't stop a lot of people from presenting them as facts.
For example:
FACT: To avoid killing Trayvon Martin, George Zimmmerman -- having called the police and knowing they are responding -- only needed to wait for them in his car.
SPECULATION: Zimmerman got out of his car to find a street sign.
SPECULATION: Trayvon Martin unlawfully attacked George Zimmerman
See the difference?
posted by mikelieman at 7:48 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I encourage you to look for another pop social science book to explain the Zimmerman murder case. One about racism would probably be helpful.
And perhaps something more recent than 20 years old?
posted by mikelieman at 7:54 AM on July 20, 2013
And perhaps something more recent than 20 years old?
posted by mikelieman at 7:54 AM on July 20, 2013
But this is speculation, and you're talking about it like it's settled fact. Rachel Jeantel testified that he did go home.
Link? Are you looking at this:
"JEANTEL: He told me the dude was close to him.
WEST: Right. At that point, he decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
WEST: And he could have just run home if he wasn't there.
JEANTEL: He was already by his house. He told me.
WEST: Of course, you don't know if he was telling you the truth or not.
JEANTEL: Why he need to lie about that, sir?
WEST: Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn't want you to know about it.
JEANTEL: That's a little retarded, sir."
Did you miss the "He told me the dude was close to him" part? Or are you referring to some other part of the testimony?
posted by cashman at 8:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Link? Are you looking at this:
"JEANTEL: He told me the dude was close to him.
WEST: Right. At that point, he decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me?
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.
WEST: And he could have just run home if he wasn't there.
JEANTEL: He was already by his house. He told me.
WEST: Of course, you don't know if he was telling you the truth or not.
JEANTEL: Why he need to lie about that, sir?
WEST: Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn't want you to know about it.
JEANTEL: That's a little retarded, sir."
Did you miss the "He told me the dude was close to him" part? Or are you referring to some other part of the testimony?
posted by cashman at 8:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's actually possible to believe that Martin completely instigated the fight but that his doing so was justifiable or at least understandable.
It's equally as possible to believe that Zimmerman completely instigated the fight. The difference being, his doing so would be neither justifiable or understandable. And from where I stand, the mental gymnastics required to justify or understand Zimmerman's story can only be rationalized through deep seated racial bias or actual derangement.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:55 AM on July 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
It's equally as possible to believe that Zimmerman completely instigated the fight. The difference being, his doing so would be neither justifiable or understandable. And from where I stand, the mental gymnastics required to justify or understand Zimmerman's story can only be rationalized through deep seated racial bias or actual derangement.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:55 AM on July 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
cashman, Jeantel was mistaken if she thought that Martin was near his house AND Zimmerman was near him at the time the confrontation took place. Because the confrontation did not take place near Martin's house, but a couple hundred feet away, near the T in the path.
So something in there is muddled. You can choose to believe Martin never went near his house; but last Zimmerman saw him, he was running in that direction, and then after Jeantel called Martin back, he said he was at his father's house. So as far as the evidence goes that we have, which isn't much, he was likely there, and then returned to the T. There was plenty of time for him to do so.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was down by Martin's father's house. He could have been, but there's nothing to indicate he was. At the time of the confrontation, he was in roughly the same area where he had lost sight of Martin while talking to 911.
The only alternative to some form of doubling back on Martin's part was that he dived into the bushes at the T, I guess, and spent four minutes lying low there and talking to Jeantel, and then emerged and Zimmerman spotted him. This just doesn't fit RJ's testimony, though. I think the elements of Jeantel's testimony are probably accurate, she just doesn't remember the timing precisely.
posted by torticat at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
So something in there is muddled. You can choose to believe Martin never went near his house; but last Zimmerman saw him, he was running in that direction, and then after Jeantel called Martin back, he said he was at his father's house. So as far as the evidence goes that we have, which isn't much, he was likely there, and then returned to the T. There was plenty of time for him to do so.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was down by Martin's father's house. He could have been, but there's nothing to indicate he was. At the time of the confrontation, he was in roughly the same area where he had lost sight of Martin while talking to 911.
The only alternative to some form of doubling back on Martin's part was that he dived into the bushes at the T, I guess, and spent four minutes lying low there and talking to Jeantel, and then emerged and Zimmerman spotted him. This just doesn't fit RJ's testimony, though. I think the elements of Jeantel's testimony are probably accurate, she just doesn't remember the timing precisely.
posted by torticat at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
But aren't you accepting Zimmerman's accounts, while discounting hers? If she said Trayvon was near his house but that Zimmerman was close by, it makes it clearer than it already was why he didn't go inside. You're reaching. As others have said, trying out the 'crazed negro' theory that Zimmerman was just strolling along eating some ice cream and Trayvon climbed the side of a house like a panther and attacked.
Meanwhile the actual situation is pretty clear that Zimmerman was chasing this kid around the complex they both stayed at.
This silliness has been going on on metafilter for years, unfortunately. We've covered this ground before. This whole thing started because a grown man, Zimmerman, was chasing a teenager, Trayvon, around the complex.
On to better things, I hope Jay Smooth posts a new video today. Every time I see any activity from him, I'm hoping he's making a new video. He has come to be so proficient at making poignant statements in these videos, I have come to really look forward to seeing them.
posted by cashman at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile the actual situation is pretty clear that Zimmerman was chasing this kid around the complex they both stayed at.
This silliness has been going on on metafilter for years, unfortunately. We've covered this ground before. This whole thing started because a grown man, Zimmerman, was chasing a teenager, Trayvon, around the complex.
On to better things, I hope Jay Smooth posts a new video today. Every time I see any activity from him, I'm hoping he's making a new video. He has come to be so proficient at making poignant statements in these videos, I have come to really look forward to seeing them.
posted by cashman at 9:12 AM on July 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
by Martin's father's house.
Given that he'd been walking home from the convenience store, couldn't "by Martin's father's house" also mean "off the street and onto the sidewalk running behind the houses"?
In other words, quantify, in precise terms, 'By'.
posted by mikelieman at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Given that he'd been walking home from the convenience store, couldn't "by Martin's father's house" also mean "off the street and onto the sidewalk running behind the houses"?
In other words, quantify, in precise terms, 'By'.
posted by mikelieman at 9:35 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
I do think it's weird that some people are acting like this tip line is some unprecedented step that must be a violation of someone's rights. Do you guys never read the papers? Off the top of my head, I can think of several local cases in the last couple of years where the police have asked the public to call if they have any information pertaining to a particular crime and the person suspected of committing it.
Generally, with a tip line, you already have a crime, and you're looking for a suspect, not the reverse.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:40 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Generally, with a tip line, you already have a crime, and you're looking for a suspect, not the reverse.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:40 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
And in some cases, you have a possible crime but one of the two witnesses to that crime is dead.
What was the name of that Bay Area software guy who killed his wife and hid her body, and claimed she had fled to Russia or otherwise just run away? Pretty sure that in addition to the regular gumshoe work, there was a tip line for anyone with information to call about that - her disappearance, any sightings, any knowledge of conflict within that relationship, etc. The cops were not expected to just take the word of the husband that she'd run off.
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
What was the name of that Bay Area software guy who killed his wife and hid her body, and claimed she had fled to Russia or otherwise just run away? Pretty sure that in addition to the regular gumshoe work, there was a tip line for anyone with information to call about that - her disappearance, any sightings, any knowledge of conflict within that relationship, etc. The cops were not expected to just take the word of the husband that she'd run off.
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on July 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
torticat: You might want to consider that your constant harping and interpretation of those "missing" four minutes is, not only uncharitable to Trayvon and charitable to Zimmerman, but is also a willful attempt to show that Trayvon must have had some hand in what ultimately happened.
You, like I, have absolutely no idea what happened in those four minutes (other than that Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel during that time). The fact that so many people believe those four minutes are absolute evidence that Trayvon doubled back in order to attack Zimmerman really does further the whole "crazy Negro" thing. He could have doubled back to attack Zimmerman, obviously he could have, but there are so many other things that could have happened.
If it is impossible for someone to write anything else into that gap, then I think that's indicative of trying to fit the few details that are available into a narrative that makes Trayvon culpable of having some hand in being murdered, while simultaneously absolving Zimmerman of total culpability for the situation. Why are people so invested in doing that?
Also, Zimmerman is a total fucking liar. About everything. I mean, he's not even good at it! So the constant iterations of "Zimmerman said..." are indicative of "phoning in" evidence in order to further a transparent and weirdly misplaced (in my opinion, of course) agenda.
posted by eunoia at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
You, like I, have absolutely no idea what happened in those four minutes (other than that Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel during that time). The fact that so many people believe those four minutes are absolute evidence that Trayvon doubled back in order to attack Zimmerman really does further the whole "crazy Negro" thing. He could have doubled back to attack Zimmerman, obviously he could have, but there are so many other things that could have happened.
If it is impossible for someone to write anything else into that gap, then I think that's indicative of trying to fit the few details that are available into a narrative that makes Trayvon culpable of having some hand in being murdered, while simultaneously absolving Zimmerman of total culpability for the situation. Why are people so invested in doing that?
Also, Zimmerman is a total fucking liar. About everything. I mean, he's not even good at it! So the constant iterations of "Zimmerman said..." are indicative of "phoning in" evidence in order to further a transparent and weirdly misplaced (in my opinion, of course) agenda.
posted by eunoia at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
What was the name of that Bay Area software guy who killed his wife and hid her body, and claimed she had fled to Russia or otherwise just run away? Pretty sure that in addition to the regular gumshoe work, there was a tip line for anyone with information to call about that - her disappearance, any sightings, any knowledge of conflict within that relationship, etc. The cops were not expected to just take the word of the husband that she'd run off.
Not really comparable. This isn't a missing-person case.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:15 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not really comparable. This isn't a missing-person case.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:15 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
And remember, Trayvon was so much taller than Zimmerman. What man doesn't fear the GIANT NEGRO?
posted by klangklangston at 10:24 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 10:24 AM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Y'all are TOTALLY misinterpreting the DOJ "Tip Line".
The purpose of the "Tip Line" is to provide the APPEARANCE OF GIVING A SHIT. Believe you me, no calls to the 'tip line' will result in any meaningful activity.
But they can point to it and say, "Look, we give a shit. We setup this totally legitimate phone line for people to express their concerns and, like, stuff...."
Mission Accomplished.
posted by mikelieman at 10:33 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
The purpose of the "Tip Line" is to provide the APPEARANCE OF GIVING A SHIT. Believe you me, no calls to the 'tip line' will result in any meaningful activity.
But they can point to it and say, "Look, we give a shit. We setup this totally legitimate phone line for people to express their concerns and, like, stuff...."
Mission Accomplished.
posted by mikelieman at 10:33 AM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Generally, with a tip line, you already have a crime, and you're looking for a suspect, not the reverse.
And
Not really comparable. This isn't a missing-person case.
/goddamnit I lost the fucking goalposts again could people stop moving the stupid things thanks
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
And
Not really comparable. This isn't a missing-person case.
/goddamnit I lost the fucking goalposts again could people stop moving the stupid things thanks
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
Trayvon's did file a missing perdon's report though.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:44 AM on July 20, 2013
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:44 AM on July 20, 2013
The only alternative to some form of doubling back on Martin's part was that he dived into the bushes at the T, I guess, and spent four minutes lying low there and talking to Jeantel, and then emerged and Zimmerman spotted him.
Where Was Trayvon? -- The "Missing" Minutes Explained
The evidence of what exactly lead up to the confrontation is muddled and confused. Three of the six jurors who presumably listened to the entire testimony (as poorly presented as it was by the prosecution) were ready to give a guilty verdict, yet here some insist it is "obvious" that Trayvon went after Zimmerman to beat him down because of Trayvon's "culture."
I think the missing minutes are kind of irrelevant. Trayvon should have a right to walk around the gated community he is living in unmolested. I'm not sure Zimmerman really should have the right to follow around and harass a teenager while carrying a concealed weapon because said teenager is wearing a hoodie and is black or whatever, but I guess Florida is a different place.
Why the heck would Zimmerman get out of his car to find a street sign? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to stay in his car and drive over to a corner to find a street sign?
Regarding the non-emergency call, the "are you following him? we don't need you to do that?" was apparently accompanied by, according to Zimmerman, "if he's not there anymore, do you still need a police officer?" To which Zimmerman replies, "yes." It seems clear to me they were annoyed with Zimmerman's call in the first place and didn't see a need for an officer to be sent out or for Zimmerman to be stalking Martin in the first place.
Zimmerman was taking MMA classes three times a week? Wouldn't that, along with his fantasies of being some sort of law enforcer, his previous criminal personality and behavior, and his pride in avoiding the consequences of crimes he committed as seen in his own myspace comments -
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
Where Was Trayvon? -- The "Missing" Minutes Explained
The evidence of what exactly lead up to the confrontation is muddled and confused. Three of the six jurors who presumably listened to the entire testimony (as poorly presented as it was by the prosecution) were ready to give a guilty verdict, yet here some insist it is "obvious" that Trayvon went after Zimmerman to beat him down because of Trayvon's "culture."
I think the missing minutes are kind of irrelevant. Trayvon should have a right to walk around the gated community he is living in unmolested. I'm not sure Zimmerman really should have the right to follow around and harass a teenager while carrying a concealed weapon because said teenager is wearing a hoodie and is black or whatever, but I guess Florida is a different place.
Why the heck would Zimmerman get out of his car to find a street sign? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to stay in his car and drive over to a corner to find a street sign?
Regarding the non-emergency call, the "are you following him? we don't need you to do that?" was apparently accompanied by, according to Zimmerman, "if he's not there anymore, do you still need a police officer?" To which Zimmerman replies, "yes." It seems clear to me they were annoyed with Zimmerman's call in the first place and didn't see a need for an officer to be sent out or for Zimmerman to be stalking Martin in the first place.
Zimmerman was taking MMA classes three times a week? Wouldn't that, along with his fantasies of being some sort of law enforcer, his previous criminal personality and behavior, and his pride in avoiding the consequences of crimes he committed as seen in his own myspace comments -
They do a year and dont ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched- tell us that we really can't believe much of anything that Zimmerman says about this crime. To me, it seems very likely that Zimmerman may have initiated confrontation, probably to attempt to restrain Martin until the police arrived.
Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me! Stay tuned for the A.T.F. charges......
2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong but still got this hump, Thanks to everyone friends and fam, G baby you know your my rock!
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:02 AM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
/goddamnit I lost the fucking goalposts again could people stop moving the stupid things thanks
You should quit moving them.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:20 PM on July 20, 2013
You should quit moving them.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:20 PM on July 20, 2013
This and the "Crazy NEGRO" framing that mikelieman keeps bringing up are not fair responses to the arguments that have been made here.
Arguments that do not take racism into account do not fairly assess the situation.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:30 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
Arguments that do not take racism into account do not fairly assess the situation.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:30 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
Martin obviously double-backed to deliver some "whoop-ass". He could have gone anywhere. He went right back to Zimmerman's location.
You know, i wrote out a LONG diatribe in response to this and several other "But dem black folks are agressive and violent!" posts like this and then a switch flipped in my head.
If Zimmerman was stalking Martin, what duty did Martin have to retreat? NONE. He essentially proceeded for long enough to verify that Zimmerman was definitely aggressively following him and then turned(and possibly doubled back a bit) to confront him.
Ignoring the fact that the court case would not have gone the way it did if Martin killed Zimmerman, doesn't that apply just as much if not more as self defense? Why does it change fucking anything if Martin was essentially doing something even more justifiable by those kooky laws than Zimmerman was?
How is his right to defend himself, and not lead an aggressive plausibly violent person stalking him to his home invalid?
There's also that goddamn shitty thing going on again here where people pull out this "Delivery some "whoop-ass"" type shit and then try and take race off the table again when they're the ones talking about "violent people in the south" and shit. Fuck off with the dog whistles.
posted by emptythought at 2:09 PM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
You know, i wrote out a LONG diatribe in response to this and several other "But dem black folks are agressive and violent!" posts like this and then a switch flipped in my head.
If Zimmerman was stalking Martin, what duty did Martin have to retreat? NONE. He essentially proceeded for long enough to verify that Zimmerman was definitely aggressively following him and then turned(and possibly doubled back a bit) to confront him.
Ignoring the fact that the court case would not have gone the way it did if Martin killed Zimmerman, doesn't that apply just as much if not more as self defense? Why does it change fucking anything if Martin was essentially doing something even more justifiable by those kooky laws than Zimmerman was?
How is his right to defend himself, and not lead an aggressive plausibly violent person stalking him to his home invalid?
There's also that goddamn shitty thing going on again here where people pull out this "Delivery some "whoop-ass"" type shit and then try and take race off the table again when they're the ones talking about "violent people in the south" and shit. Fuck off with the dog whistles.
posted by emptythought at 2:09 PM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
You should quit moving them.
Oh horseshit. You said tip lines don't happen unless a crime is known to have been committed. But now missing persons is....special.
posted by rtha at 2:19 PM on July 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh horseshit. You said tip lines don't happen unless a crime is known to have been committed. But now missing persons is....special.
posted by rtha at 2:19 PM on July 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh horseshit. You said tip lines don't happen unless a crime is known to have been committed. But now missing persons is....special.
Again, there's a chance a crime has been committed if someone goes missing. What this tip line is doing is trying to get people to provide evidence of a crime where there has already been a trial and an acquittal for the incident in question. I'm not sure it's completely without precedent, but presenting it as though it's just another routine plea for information from the public, when it is nothing of the sort, is just disingenuous.
This is not "call if you have information about this crime," it's "call if you have information that would recriminalize this behavior."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:27 PM on July 20, 2013
Again, there's a chance a crime has been committed if someone goes missing. What this tip line is doing is trying to get people to provide evidence of a crime where there has already been a trial and an acquittal for the incident in question. I'm not sure it's completely without precedent, but presenting it as though it's just another routine plea for information from the public, when it is nothing of the sort, is just disingenuous.
This is not "call if you have information about this crime," it's "call if you have information that would recriminalize this behavior."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:27 PM on July 20, 2013
a crime where there has already been a trial and an acquittal for the incident in question.
Zimmerman was not charged with or tried for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what the Feds are investigating.
posted by rtha at 2:41 PM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Zimmerman was not charged with or tried for violating Martin's civil rights. That is what the Feds are investigating.
posted by rtha at 2:41 PM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
But aren't you accepting Zimmerman's accounts, while discounting hers?
No! Nothing I said in that comment relies on Zimmerman's account after the fact. As far as Jeantel's testimony goes, far from discounting it, I'm accepting all of it except for what's not physically possible--that Martin was by his father's house and Zimmerman was close to him there when the confrontation started. Look, she says there was the "why are you following me" exchange, someone threw a punch, and then they sounded like they were on the ground. This is consistent with what the neighbors heard and saw, only it happened up by the T in the path, a couple hundred feet from Martin's father's house. The location of the fight is not disputed.
I am not "reaching," I'm trying to put together the facts that we know and make sense of them. I asked upthread, give me a scenario that accepts Jeantel's testimony, does not require Martin to double back, and places the confrontation where it actually happened.
posted by torticat at 2:42 PM on July 20, 2013
No! Nothing I said in that comment relies on Zimmerman's account after the fact. As far as Jeantel's testimony goes, far from discounting it, I'm accepting all of it except for what's not physically possible--that Martin was by his father's house and Zimmerman was close to him there when the confrontation started. Look, she says there was the "why are you following me" exchange, someone threw a punch, and then they sounded like they were on the ground. This is consistent with what the neighbors heard and saw, only it happened up by the T in the path, a couple hundred feet from Martin's father's house. The location of the fight is not disputed.
I am not "reaching," I'm trying to put together the facts that we know and make sense of them. I asked upthread, give me a scenario that accepts Jeantel's testimony, does not require Martin to double back, and places the confrontation where it actually happened.
posted by torticat at 2:42 PM on July 20, 2013
Martin was by his father's house
Define "by" in feet and inches.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on July 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
Define "by" in feet and inches.
posted by mikelieman at 2:44 PM on July 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
Where Was Trayvon? -- The "Missing" Minutes Explained
Seriously. Listen to the available evidence/testimony and make up your own mind, don't just google "Trayvon Martin double back."
The commentary you linked holds that, because Martin had to be hiding out in the mailbox shelter the whole time, Zimmerman must have inferred that he had run because he didn't know where he'd gone. The 911 call clearly gives the lie to this theory; Zimmerman saw Martin running. He said to dispatch, "Shit, he's running," and then answered a question about the direction Martin had run. And then parked his car and got out. This is pretty much on the record.
posted by torticat at 2:52 PM on July 20, 2013
Seriously. Listen to the available evidence/testimony and make up your own mind, don't just google "Trayvon Martin double back."
The commentary you linked holds that, because Martin had to be hiding out in the mailbox shelter the whole time, Zimmerman must have inferred that he had run because he didn't know where he'd gone. The 911 call clearly gives the lie to this theory; Zimmerman saw Martin running. He said to dispatch, "Shit, he's running," and then answered a question about the direction Martin had run. And then parked his car and got out. This is pretty much on the record.
posted by torticat at 2:52 PM on July 20, 2013
That is what the Feds are investigating.
So "call if you have information that would recriminalize this behavior," then.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:57 PM on July 20, 2013
So "call if you have information that would recriminalize this behavior," then.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:57 PM on July 20, 2013
Seriously. Listen to the available evidence/testimony and make up your own mind, don't just google "Trayvon Martin double back."
We've had an awful lot of time to listen to the available evidence and we have done so. We disagree with you and think you are far too trusting of Zimmerman and far too certain what Trayvon Martin meant by the word 'by' in a sentence said when he was scared and talking to his girlfriend. It's not that we're not as well informed as you or not as reasonable as you, it's just that we disagree with you.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:01 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
We've had an awful lot of time to listen to the available evidence and we have done so. We disagree with you and think you are far too trusting of Zimmerman and far too certain what Trayvon Martin meant by the word 'by' in a sentence said when he was scared and talking to his girlfriend. It's not that we're not as well informed as you or not as reasonable as you, it's just that we disagree with you.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:01 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
It's not that we're not as well informed as you or not as reasonable as you, it's just that we disagree with you.
hydropsyche, that is fine of course! But for one thing, can you tell me if you honestly agree with the commentary I was responding to, that Zimmerman was not actually looking at Martin when he said "shit, he's running"?
And second, in response to the question that you are talking about, that's really a question of Rachel Jeantel's testimony and not my interpretation of it. She was very definite on the subject of Martin's being at his father's house. It is not ambiguous at all what she thought, although she may have misunderstood him.
posted by torticat at 3:35 PM on July 20, 2013
hydropsyche, that is fine of course! But for one thing, can you tell me if you honestly agree with the commentary I was responding to, that Zimmerman was not actually looking at Martin when he said "shit, he's running"?
And second, in response to the question that you are talking about, that's really a question of Rachel Jeantel's testimony and not my interpretation of it. She was very definite on the subject of Martin's being at his father's house. It is not ambiguous at all what she thought, although she may have misunderstood him.
posted by torticat at 3:35 PM on July 20, 2013
She said 'by' not 'at'. There is a difference between 'by' and 'at' where I grew up. But I'm a Brit, so what do I know.
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:46 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:46 PM on July 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yes, I'm from "the South" (which does not include Miami) and "by my house" and "at my house" mean different things to me. I just asked my husband, who is a white Jewish guy who grew up in Miami, and to him "by my house" means "in the neighborhood", which is what it means to me as well. "At my house" means outside the door/in the yard.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:57 PM on July 20, 2013
posted by hydropsyche at 3:57 PM on July 20, 2013
So "call if you have information that would recriminalize this behavior," then.
No, "call if you have information that is relevant to another charge that would not have been relevant during the state investigation." It's not a difficult concept.
posted by kagredon at 4:27 PM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
No, "call if you have information that is relevant to another charge that would not have been relevant during the state investigation." It's not a difficult concept.
posted by kagredon at 4:27 PM on July 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Not sure why it matters so much, but I believe that Jeantel's answer to West's cross as to why she did not call the police after the phone died, was:
"I thought he was going to be OK because he was right by his daddy's house, but his daddy was not home"
posted by snaparapans at 4:28 PM on July 20, 2013
"I thought he was going to be OK because he was right by his daddy's house, but his daddy was not home"
posted by snaparapans at 4:28 PM on July 20, 2013
Jeantel said both "by" and "at," but it's silly to argue about which preposition she testified to (obviously she might not remember herself which one Martin used). The point is she thought Martin was literally at his father's house; she kind of insisted on this. Again, she may have misunderstood him of course.
posted by torticat at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2013
posted by torticat at 4:53 PM on July 20, 2013
The point is, nobody knows where exactly Martin was at that time. We have Zimmerman's account, which seems to be largely fabricated, and we have Jeantel's surmise from the phone call. But Zimmerman killed Martin, so we'll never have Martin's account. The point is that your guess about what happened is no more or less correct than anyone else's guess.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:03 PM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 5:03 PM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Seriously. Listen to the available evidence/testimony and make up your own mind, don't just google "Trayvon Martin double back."
I never said I agreed with everything in the article, I just thought it was an interesting take on what might have happened. I'm sure I've googled "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" a number of times as I've been reading this thread, but I don't believe I ever googled "Trayvon Martin double back."
Why is it necessary for anyone to make up their mind about what exactly happened, when there simply isn't enough evidence to know with certainty? Maybe you already making up your mind mind is why you seem only to consider evidence that seems to support your view. I would like to have heard Trayvon's side of the story.
I decided to google "Zimmerman non-emergency transcript," and found the audio of it here. It is truly creepy, imo. A few impressions I had:
I never said I agreed with everything in the article, I just thought it was an interesting take on what might have happened. I'm sure I've googled "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" a number of times as I've been reading this thread, but I don't believe I ever googled "Trayvon Martin double back."
Why is it necessary for anyone to make up their mind about what exactly happened, when there simply isn't enough evidence to know with certainty? Maybe you already making up your mind mind is why you seem only to consider evidence that seems to support your view. I would like to have heard Trayvon's side of the story.
I decided to google "Zimmerman non-emergency transcript," and found the audio of it here. It is truly creepy, imo. A few impressions I had:
- Zimmerman clearly says "fucking coons." I don't know how this got turned into "fucking punks."
- When he says he sees Trayvon putting his hand in his waste band and looking at him, he does sound scarred to me, but about a minute later, when he says "he's running" and "fucking coons" while getting out of his car (by the sound of it), he starts to sound much more emboldened, and by his comments it clearly seems that he has projected some sort of perpetrator onto Trayvon, rather than a kid walking home while stuffing a 7-11 bag into his sweatshirt and pulling out his phone to talk to his friend.
- The dispatcher suggests that Zimmerman wait for the police by the mailboxes, "okay, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?" Zimmerman responds with, "yeah that's fine," but then changes his mind and says, "could you have them call me, and I’ll tell them where I’m at?" I think Zimmerman may have changed his mind because he decided to hunt Trayvon down. If Trayvon did run away, it seems likely he was just trying to get out of the rain and out of site of the creep that was stalking him, while he finished his conversation with Jeantel.
It is just amazing to me that you have someone minding their own business. You have another party who admits chasing them around a complex, yet some people are reaching for some way to blame the person that was chased. Disgusting.
posted by cashman at 5:31 PM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by cashman at 5:31 PM on July 20, 2013 [13 favorites]
So forgive me if this has been mentioned in the thread, because there were a couple of days there where I just couldn't take any more nonsense and I left for a bit. But it isn't a given that Zimmerman's stalking would have ended if Trayvon would have outrun Zimmerman, and gotten inside his dad's house.
We already know it's pretty clear that Trayvon was afraid to go home because Zimmerman (the creepy so-and-so) was following him. Trayvon's little brother was in the house. Let's say he just runs in his house. Is it over then? Or in the dark, does Zimmerman see him going into the house and think A-HA! It's Him! He broke into a house! This is the guy! Zimmerman follows him into the house, and shoots Trayvon there. I bet Zimmerman could get off in that case too, claiming he used force to stop what he thought was a felony in action.
But regardless, if Zimmerman was close enough to see where Trayvon went in, Zimmerman would have likely gone in, thinking that this was a home invasion like the one he knew of (talked about during the trial, testified to somehow, by the woman who experienced it), and then Trayvon's younger brother would have been at risk too. Zimmerman might have shot them both, thinking they were the two people from before. So Trayvon might have actually saved his brother's life by doing what he did.
Now for some people, you're thinking "oh that's far fetched", right. No it isn't. Dave Chappelle talked about it back when Trayvon was five years old. He says if he called law enforcement to his house saying there is a break in, they'd see the house and hit Dave over the head, assuming he's a burglar. I also have a vague memory of this same situation being on an episode of an old sitcom, like Different Strokes. You can see the same thing in the recent film "Attack the Block", when the characters lament that if the police come, they will have to be convinced that the black teenagers saved the day and are not criminals. You can also see it in NBC VP Val Nichols talking about how twice as a teen he had guns pointed at him out of nowhere. Check the second incident:
The person at fault here is the adult who racially profiled, then stalked a kid in a car and on foot. The confrontation began the moment Zimmerman started following Trayvon. It's bullshit to try to plot the perfect course of action, a tightrope of a maze of turns to take to save his life from an unknown man chasing after him with a gun. No more.
posted by cashman at 6:03 PM on July 20, 2013 [17 favorites]
We already know it's pretty clear that Trayvon was afraid to go home because Zimmerman (the creepy so-and-so) was following him. Trayvon's little brother was in the house. Let's say he just runs in his house. Is it over then? Or in the dark, does Zimmerman see him going into the house and think A-HA! It's Him! He broke into a house! This is the guy! Zimmerman follows him into the house, and shoots Trayvon there. I bet Zimmerman could get off in that case too, claiming he used force to stop what he thought was a felony in action.
But regardless, if Zimmerman was close enough to see where Trayvon went in, Zimmerman would have likely gone in, thinking that this was a home invasion like the one he knew of (talked about during the trial, testified to somehow, by the woman who experienced it), and then Trayvon's younger brother would have been at risk too. Zimmerman might have shot them both, thinking they were the two people from before. So Trayvon might have actually saved his brother's life by doing what he did.
Now for some people, you're thinking "oh that's far fetched", right. No it isn't. Dave Chappelle talked about it back when Trayvon was five years old. He says if he called law enforcement to his house saying there is a break in, they'd see the house and hit Dave over the head, assuming he's a burglar. I also have a vague memory of this same situation being on an episode of an old sitcom, like Different Strokes. You can see the same thing in the recent film "Attack the Block", when the characters lament that if the police come, they will have to be convinced that the black teenagers saved the day and are not criminals. You can also see it in NBC VP Val Nichols talking about how twice as a teen he had guns pointed at him out of nowhere. Check the second incident:
The second time was while I was in a convenience store, and a voice from behind me told me not to move a muscle. I glanced back and saw a shotgun pointed at the back of my head. I thought I was being robbed and I had an envelope in my coat pocket with money I had just cashed from my paycheck. I was thinking about trying to get it out and hide it in the snack display in front of me.So there is no assurance that Trayvon getting inside the house would have ended anything, and in fact both Trayvon and his brother might both be dead now, as Zimmerman was clearly assuming black males of a certain age were burglars that night and nights before.
Had I done that, I would have died on the spot.
It was a police officer with the shotgun trained on me. It turned out the store clerk had accidentally stepped on the emergency robbery switch which sent a silent alarm to the police. This would have been perfectly understandable if not for the fact that the cop singled me out as the potential robber. All the other patrons in the shop happened to be white.
The person at fault here is the adult who racially profiled, then stalked a kid in a car and on foot. The confrontation began the moment Zimmerman started following Trayvon. It's bullshit to try to plot the perfect course of action, a tightrope of a maze of turns to take to save his life from an unknown man chasing after him with a gun. No more.
posted by cashman at 6:03 PM on July 20, 2013 [17 favorites]
Seen today in a parking area of a Florida private gun club: A muscle shirt printed on the front with a picture that had signs saying "Justice 4 Trayvon" and "No Justice, No Peace" under which was printed "No Peace, More Guns." I might have guessed the wearer to be Samoan or Latino, but I'm notoriously bad at guessing elusive concepts like "race," just based on personal observations, and I didn't speak to the wearer to check how they self-identified.
After that front view, I wanted to see the back of the shirt, and when the wearer turned to walk around the vehicle to the driver's side, I did. It just said "Isaiah 11:6" and it was this afternoon before I got home to look up the reference. I dunno, I guess I hope a dead child does somehow wisely lead us all to better understanding of one another, if that's at all what the printer or wearer of the shirt meant to suggest. But I also know that on the way to the range, I got the last box of cheap Winchester .40 S&W range ammunition on the shelf today, and that there are no bargains for ammunition to be had today in America, where makers quickly sell every bullet that they can crank out, and most have added shifts and production capacity in the last year, into a still rising market.
This late in this life in America, I would never have thought it would still feel so much like the summer of 1968.
posted by paulsc at 6:08 PM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
After that front view, I wanted to see the back of the shirt, and when the wearer turned to walk around the vehicle to the driver's side, I did. It just said "Isaiah 11:6" and it was this afternoon before I got home to look up the reference. I dunno, I guess I hope a dead child does somehow wisely lead us all to better understanding of one another, if that's at all what the printer or wearer of the shirt meant to suggest. But I also know that on the way to the range, I got the last box of cheap Winchester .40 S&W range ammunition on the shelf today, and that there are no bargains for ammunition to be had today in America, where makers quickly sell every bullet that they can crank out, and most have added shifts and production capacity in the last year, into a still rising market.
This late in this life in America, I would never have thought it would still feel so much like the summer of 1968.
posted by paulsc at 6:08 PM on July 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
This late in this life in America, I would never have thought it would still feel so much like the summer of 1968.
Wait, do you mean the summer of 1967?
If so... It's funny, I read that and thought, huh? It doesn't feel like what I understand the summer of '67 to have been like at all. I mean my understanding of '67 is that unending, unbearable racist persecution and tormenting had pushed people to the brink.
But somehow, when I think of all the groups and individuals in the US today, who are currently being persecuted in all kinds of ways, none of them seem like they are on the brink. I've seen people frustrated, grieving, angry, and putting their blood/sweat/tears into changing the way things are for the better, but there is no undertone, in any persecuted group I can think of, of being on the edge. The undertone to me is, across the board is, "we are making progress, we are going to end this, even if we don't see the end in our lifetimes."
But then I realized, there is a group who seems on the brink, very much on the brink. Going over the brink at at alarming rate.
But the scary thing is, although they would disagree, this is not a group that is actually being persecuted.
I guess that's the glaring difference between this and 1967 to me, even if they both involve a sense of dread of violence (which I also feel)...
posted by cairdeas at 7:28 PM on July 20, 2013
Wait, do you mean the summer of 1967?
If so... It's funny, I read that and thought, huh? It doesn't feel like what I understand the summer of '67 to have been like at all. I mean my understanding of '67 is that unending, unbearable racist persecution and tormenting had pushed people to the brink.
But somehow, when I think of all the groups and individuals in the US today, who are currently being persecuted in all kinds of ways, none of them seem like they are on the brink. I've seen people frustrated, grieving, angry, and putting their blood/sweat/tears into changing the way things are for the better, but there is no undertone, in any persecuted group I can think of, of being on the edge. The undertone to me is, across the board is, "we are making progress, we are going to end this, even if we don't see the end in our lifetimes."
But then I realized, there is a group who seems on the brink, very much on the brink. Going over the brink at at alarming rate.
But the scary thing is, although they would disagree, this is not a group that is actually being persecuted.
I guess that's the glaring difference between this and 1967 to me, even if they both involve a sense of dread of violence (which I also feel)...
posted by cairdeas at 7:28 PM on July 20, 2013
I remember when the blackout happened in NYC in 2003. Of my white friends from the suburbs, their parents were like, "Get out, get out of the city before dark!! After dark there will be riots!"
There was just something about the way they phrased it - there "will be" riots. We're not saying who, will be rioting. But we're just saying, people will riot. Not you and your friends, other people. Like they did when I was your age in the blackout of '77!
Meanwhile everyone was like, "what are you talking about? There is not about to be a riot. Nobody is going to riot." Nobody did.
I feel like the perspective of older generations of white people on who is most likely to start up violence, and where and when it will happen, is especially skewed; and because they have these ideas that they developed as children, we are not dealing with the real problem.
posted by cairdeas at 7:44 PM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
There was just something about the way they phrased it - there "will be" riots. We're not saying who, will be rioting. But we're just saying, people will riot. Not you and your friends, other people. Like they did when I was your age in the blackout of '77!
Meanwhile everyone was like, "what are you talking about? There is not about to be a riot. Nobody is going to riot." Nobody did.
I feel like the perspective of older generations of white people on who is most likely to start up violence, and where and when it will happen, is especially skewed; and because they have these ideas that they developed as children, we are not dealing with the real problem.
posted by cairdeas at 7:44 PM on July 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
but there is no undertone, in any persecuted group I can think of, of being on the edge.
That's not what it feels like to me, here in the SF East Bay. It feels more and more like there is no point in even TRYING to work within the system, if you're poor and especially if you're poor and black, and that's when things are scary.
posted by small_ruminant at 7:46 PM on July 20, 2013
That's not what it feels like to me, here in the SF East Bay. It feels more and more like there is no point in even TRYING to work within the system, if you're poor and especially if you're poor and black, and that's when things are scary.
posted by small_ruminant at 7:46 PM on July 20, 2013
But I hope you're right and I'm misreading things.
posted by small_ruminant at 7:47 PM on July 20, 2013
posted by small_ruminant at 7:47 PM on July 20, 2013
You know, that's a good point, and I should have said, to my perspective and in the cities/neighborhoods I have lived in, rather than the US as a whole, because obviously I don't see what is happening in every place in the US and there are a lot that aren't very visible to people who aren't local.
posted by cairdeas at 7:59 PM on July 20, 2013
posted by cairdeas at 7:59 PM on July 20, 2013
The Time Obama Was Mistaken for a Waiter at a Tina Brown Book Party
posted by homunculus at 8:17 PM on July 20, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 8:17 PM on July 20, 2013 [6 favorites]
"Wait, do you mean the summer of 1967?..."
posted by cairdeas at 10:28 PM on July 20
No, I meant 1968, but I inadvertently double posted the hyperlink for the Isaiah reference. So I apologize for that edit failure.
1968 was the year that saw MLK killed on April 4 in Memphis, after a march he led there on March 28 which led to the police killing of a 16 year old Memphis boy, Larry Payne. The march was in support of striking garbage workers seeking union representation and better work rules, and today, few people remember or talk much about that march, or Larry Payne, except as historical footnotes to the King murder. History can't know whether MLK would even have gone to Memphis, had he known something like the Payne shooting might result. The garbage workers were glad to have him, but the strike hadn't been massively violent up to March 28, and in the coming summer heat, many believed the city would cave in on pay raises and other issues, just to get the garbage hauled out. But once King brought national civil rights and racial attention to the strike, mainly believe that the Law of Unintended Consequences operated.
1968 was also the year, after MLK's murder, of RLK's impassioned, quivering voice appeal for calm and reason that night in Indianapolis to an America that was trying to make up its mind whether to start the Second Civil War, or not, that night. And then in June, RLK was shot, and some immediately suspected it was for racial reasons. And then the Chicago Democratic "convention" circus happened, and elsewhere the Republicans nominated Nixon for President to a country that was pretty fearful about just basic law and order.
As that year went on, you could feel it, on every street in America, even in small town Kansas, not to mention in the big cities, that sense of foreboding, of sides being really taken up, like the burning of downtowns of Newark and other big cities in the previous year was just case after case of hot summer weather and local bad judgement in politics. '68 was different; ugly, low down, foreboding different.
That we got through it as a country, without more blood in the streets than we had was nearly miraculous. If you ask me, the fact that we were still getting a lot of young men into the Army and National Guard by draft probably kept things from getting worse on a purely racial axis than they might have been. The American Left of that era was fragmented across a lot of issues, including anti-war opposition, and the alliances between narrow issue groups weren't nearly as sophisticated or flexible as they are in these Internet/24 hour news cycle days.
But boy, this time of the summer, in 1968, a lot of people were holding their political opinions real close to their vests, and hoping for the best. I hope, as I did then, that we can progress straightforwardly out of tragedy, but history does not suggest that that dynamic is our strength, as a country. We seem to many to progress slowly, by measured step of elections, and economics, and international pressures, and technological progress, as much or more than by conscience or social pressure, or political discourse.
Perhaps a more perfect union shouldn't be so damn hard to come by. But, it always has been.
I'm not suggesting the current mood I sense in this country is as ugly as 1968 became. But on February 12 of 1968, black sanitation workers in Memphis were laughing out loud together and booing the white mayor, in public meetings, as Mayor Loeb asked them to go back to work, while issues were negotiated. And we went from that, to Richard Nixon's version of Law and Order in under a year.
posted by paulsc at 8:58 PM on July 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 10:28 PM on July 20
No, I meant 1968, but I inadvertently double posted the hyperlink for the Isaiah reference. So I apologize for that edit failure.
1968 was the year that saw MLK killed on April 4 in Memphis, after a march he led there on March 28 which led to the police killing of a 16 year old Memphis boy, Larry Payne. The march was in support of striking garbage workers seeking union representation and better work rules, and today, few people remember or talk much about that march, or Larry Payne, except as historical footnotes to the King murder. History can't know whether MLK would even have gone to Memphis, had he known something like the Payne shooting might result. The garbage workers were glad to have him, but the strike hadn't been massively violent up to March 28, and in the coming summer heat, many believed the city would cave in on pay raises and other issues, just to get the garbage hauled out. But once King brought national civil rights and racial attention to the strike, mainly believe that the Law of Unintended Consequences operated.
1968 was also the year, after MLK's murder, of RLK's impassioned, quivering voice appeal for calm and reason that night in Indianapolis to an America that was trying to make up its mind whether to start the Second Civil War, or not, that night. And then in June, RLK was shot, and some immediately suspected it was for racial reasons. And then the Chicago Democratic "convention" circus happened, and elsewhere the Republicans nominated Nixon for President to a country that was pretty fearful about just basic law and order.
As that year went on, you could feel it, on every street in America, even in small town Kansas, not to mention in the big cities, that sense of foreboding, of sides being really taken up, like the burning of downtowns of Newark and other big cities in the previous year was just case after case of hot summer weather and local bad judgement in politics. '68 was different; ugly, low down, foreboding different.
That we got through it as a country, without more blood in the streets than we had was nearly miraculous. If you ask me, the fact that we were still getting a lot of young men into the Army and National Guard by draft probably kept things from getting worse on a purely racial axis than they might have been. The American Left of that era was fragmented across a lot of issues, including anti-war opposition, and the alliances between narrow issue groups weren't nearly as sophisticated or flexible as they are in these Internet/24 hour news cycle days.
But boy, this time of the summer, in 1968, a lot of people were holding their political opinions real close to their vests, and hoping for the best. I hope, as I did then, that we can progress straightforwardly out of tragedy, but history does not suggest that that dynamic is our strength, as a country. We seem to many to progress slowly, by measured step of elections, and economics, and international pressures, and technological progress, as much or more than by conscience or social pressure, or political discourse.
Perhaps a more perfect union shouldn't be so damn hard to come by. But, it always has been.
I'm not suggesting the current mood I sense in this country is as ugly as 1968 became. But on February 12 of 1968, black sanitation workers in Memphis were laughing out loud together and booing the white mayor, in public meetings, as Mayor Loeb asked them to go back to work, while issues were negotiated. And we went from that, to Richard Nixon's version of Law and Order in under a year.
posted by paulsc at 8:58 PM on July 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
I was lucky enough to visit the King Historic Site this weekend. I was even luckier to be taking my mom there, who was in college in Atlanta in 1968 but had never visited the Site. There are many amazing things to see there, but the most remarkable thing for me, and possibly for her as well, was the wooden cart that carried Dr. King's coffin, pulled by two donkeys, down the streets of Atlanta. And next to it, they replayed video of his funeral, of the streets just packed for miles with people there to pay their respects.
My mom's biggest memory of that summer is that everybody thought there would be riots, that they as white people were scared of civil unrest, but that there were not riots in Atlanta. That huge throng of people who had traveled from all over the country, who were not welcome, stlll, in most hotels and restaurants in my city but stayed at churches and private homes, were disciples of Dr. King and his culture of non-violence, there to pay respect to someone killed by the white culture of violence.
There was so much of that white culture of violence on display at the King Historic Site. From videos of KKK marches and lynchings, to videos of the lunch counter sit-ins and school integrations with white people physically grabbing and shoving the (black and white) protesters, to photos from the Birmingham church bombing, to a video of (now Congressman) John Lewis talking frankly about being beaten to within an inch of his life, to terrifying videos from the anti-war march in Chicago, where Dr. King was hit in the head by a thrown rock and the jeering crowd kept firing guns in the air, causing all the protesters to flinch, to the videos of Dr. King's last few sermons and speeches, which were mostly about his certainty that he would soon be killed and that others must take up what he had done, one of which was played at his funeral with that wooden casket that would soon be loaded on that wooden cart.
I will host any MeFite who wants to visit the King Site in my home. I will walk by his tomb with you, I will go through the displays with you, I will stand in Ebenezer Baptist Church with you, I will gaze at the wooden cart with you, but mostly, I will be there with you to talk about this big lie we have created and maintained in our society of scary black men and safe white men, and the reality of what our country is actually all about, which bears no resemblance to history.
No, I'm not scared of riots. I am scared, no, I am certain, that more white people will kill more black people for no real reason with impunity. Because that is our culture of violence.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:39 AM on July 21, 2013 [29 favorites]
My mom's biggest memory of that summer is that everybody thought there would be riots, that they as white people were scared of civil unrest, but that there were not riots in Atlanta. That huge throng of people who had traveled from all over the country, who were not welcome, stlll, in most hotels and restaurants in my city but stayed at churches and private homes, were disciples of Dr. King and his culture of non-violence, there to pay respect to someone killed by the white culture of violence.
There was so much of that white culture of violence on display at the King Historic Site. From videos of KKK marches and lynchings, to videos of the lunch counter sit-ins and school integrations with white people physically grabbing and shoving the (black and white) protesters, to photos from the Birmingham church bombing, to a video of (now Congressman) John Lewis talking frankly about being beaten to within an inch of his life, to terrifying videos from the anti-war march in Chicago, where Dr. King was hit in the head by a thrown rock and the jeering crowd kept firing guns in the air, causing all the protesters to flinch, to the videos of Dr. King's last few sermons and speeches, which were mostly about his certainty that he would soon be killed and that others must take up what he had done, one of which was played at his funeral with that wooden casket that would soon be loaded on that wooden cart.
I will host any MeFite who wants to visit the King Site in my home. I will walk by his tomb with you, I will go through the displays with you, I will stand in Ebenezer Baptist Church with you, I will gaze at the wooden cart with you, but mostly, I will be there with you to talk about this big lie we have created and maintained in our society of scary black men and safe white men, and the reality of what our country is actually all about, which bears no resemblance to history.
No, I'm not scared of riots. I am scared, no, I am certain, that more white people will kill more black people for no real reason with impunity. Because that is our culture of violence.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:39 AM on July 21, 2013 [29 favorites]
Zimmerman clearly says "fucking coons."
Yes, and when you play Judas Priest albums backwards, they clearly contain the phrases "sing my evil spirit" and "fuck the Lord". Seriously, there's nothing there. When you listen to the call played normally it just sounds like a bit of audio distortion. It's only when it gets isolated and run through a whole bunch of filters by "audio experts" (i.e. the news station sound guy) that is kinda, sorta, maybe sounds like "fucking coons". Leave aside the fact that even an open racist blatantly using racial slurs while on the line with the police strains credibility to begin with.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:34 AM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, and when you play Judas Priest albums backwards, they clearly contain the phrases "sing my evil spirit" and "fuck the Lord". Seriously, there's nothing there. When you listen to the call played normally it just sounds like a bit of audio distortion. It's only when it gets isolated and run through a whole bunch of filters by "audio experts" (i.e. the news station sound guy) that is kinda, sorta, maybe sounds like "fucking coons". Leave aside the fact that even an open racist blatantly using racial slurs while on the line with the police strains credibility to begin with.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:34 AM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
Leave aside the fact that even an open racist blatantly using racial slurs while on the line with the police strains credibility to begin with.
I don't think he said "fucking coons" either, but on the list of credibility-strainingly dumb things people have said out loud when other people were listening, "racial slurs" is barely even on the first page. "I can't believe that someone would do something that stupid" isn't a very good defense in a court of law.
posted by Etrigan at 6:57 AM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think he said "fucking coons" either, but on the list of credibility-strainingly dumb things people have said out loud when other people were listening, "racial slurs" is barely even on the first page. "I can't believe that someone would do something that stupid" isn't a very good defense in a court of law.
posted by Etrigan at 6:57 AM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you're wondering whether or not, or to what degree George Zimmerman was motived by his own internalized racist beliefs, consider that of all the things George Zimmerman did that evening, he did not simply roll down his car window and offer his neighbor a ride home out of the rain.
posted by mikelieman at 6:58 AM on July 21, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 6:58 AM on July 21, 2013 [13 favorites]
Tom Hayden: "Trayvon Died for Our Sins"
The six jurors almost surely did not see themselves as driven by racial prejudice or stereotypes, but were in the grip of those stereotypes unconsciously....Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers: "The Seeds of Rebellion Are Taking Root, and Protests Against Injustices Are Blooming Across the Country"
For a short while it appeared that this case would be different. At first, Trayvon appeared to be a fallen angel, a good boy grabbing some Skittles and iced tea before watching television with his family, a young man with no criminal record, assaulted by a vigilante who was completely out of control....
Altering this initial – and accurate – perception of Trayvon was necessary to reframe Zimmerman’s account of a struggle in which the killer feared for his life....
And where did the concept of the super-predator originate? One can find it from the beginning of slavery times, but its contemporary resurrection came from neo-conservative intellectuals, not from Southern crackers.
This week the verdict in the George Zimmerman case caused strong reactions with thousands marching throughout the country, sometimes met with abusive police force like the LAPD shooting rubber bullets. While people were directly upset with the verdict, they also connected the decision to evidence of widespread racially unfair bias in the criminal justice system, white privilege, the long history of racism in the United States and the disregard for young black men. People are focusing on repealing “Stand Your Ground” laws that have been pushed by groups like ALEC and the NRA. In fact, Floridians have occupied Gov. Scott’s office for three days, here’s what you can do. But, they are also thinking more broadly about how to build a new civil rights movement and not allow the energy created by this verdict to dissipate, but continue to build. Florida has another Zimmerman-like case coming up, the Department of Justice is looking into civil rights charges, and given the much-too-common killings of African Americans by police and others, there will continue to be reasons for anger.posted by audi alteram partem at 7:18 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's not a difficult concept.
You're right; it's not, so I'm surprised that you still don't understand it. I'd love to see Zimmerman in jail, but this is nothing more than throwing as much as you can against the wall to see what sticks.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:15 AM on July 21, 2013
You're right; it's not, so I'm surprised that you still don't understand it. I'd love to see Zimmerman in jail, but this is nothing more than throwing as much as you can against the wall to see what sticks.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:15 AM on July 21, 2013
A friend snapped this photo of Atlanta's we-wish-it-was-world-famous Krog Street Tunnel this morning. It shows a Trayvon mural that was finished yesterday afternoon defaced overnight with a "X" and he word "NO" applied with a paint roller.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:18 AM on July 21, 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 9:18 AM on July 21, 2013
Holy shit, ob1quixote, that's horrifying. I have a friend who lives just on the Cabbagetown side of the tunnel, and I love driving through it. I am really shocked and saddened that someone would have done that.
posted by hydropsyche at 9:37 AM on July 21, 2013
posted by hydropsyche at 9:37 AM on July 21, 2013
I just showed the picture to my husband, and he said he saw it around 1 am before the paint roller got there. Really shitty.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:33 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by hydropsyche at 10:33 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Stay classy Florida.
Florida shop offers free gun to George Zimmerman.
posted by adamvasco at 11:01 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Florida shop offers free gun to George Zimmerman.
posted by adamvasco at 11:01 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
You're right; it's not, so I'm surprised that you still don't understand it. I'd love to see Zimmerman in jail, but this is nothing more than throwing as much as you can against the wall to see what sticks.
You seem to be under the impression that if someone is charged with and acquitted by one entity (e.g. the state) for the commission of Crime A, they are immune from investigation of and arrest for the commission of separate, but related, Crime B by another entity (the Feds). That's not how it works.
If you are a mafia boss who commits both murder and wire fraud, your acquittal on the murder charges by your state's jury doesn't win you immunity from prosecution from the Feds for wire fraud.
posted by rtha at 11:31 AM on July 21, 2013 [7 favorites]
You seem to be under the impression that if someone is charged with and acquitted by one entity (e.g. the state) for the commission of Crime A, they are immune from investigation of and arrest for the commission of separate, but related, Crime B by another entity (the Feds). That's not how it works.
If you are a mafia boss who commits both murder and wire fraud, your acquittal on the murder charges by your state's jury doesn't win you immunity from prosecution from the Feds for wire fraud.
posted by rtha at 11:31 AM on July 21, 2013 [7 favorites]
Stay classy, National Review!
Those metaphors aren't going to strain themselves, after all.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:41 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Those metaphors aren't going to strain themselves, after all.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:41 AM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not to be outdone...
Stay racist, David Brooks!
Stay racist, David Brooks!
posted by tonycpsu at 11:46 AM on July 21, 2013 [5 favorites]And I have to say, the point on the Stand Your Ground law was actually clarifying for me. I had some sympathy for the laws because as, you know, as Americans, we should be independent, we should be able to defend ourselves, be strong. But the argument he made about, you know, do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here, people walking around with guns feeling free to shoot off without legal protections, without the normal legal process -- now, that's a compelling argument, which he put very well.Yes, Brooks actually said he'd never quite thought about the possibility of extending Stand Your Ground to "all sorts of people." Yes, even those sorts. When you put it that way, Stand Your Ground is kinda scary, hunh, David?
That NRO cartoon is almost beyond belief.
posted by jaduncan at 11:58 AM on July 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 11:58 AM on July 21, 2013 [6 favorites]
It's absolutely amazing. The thought of Trayvon Martin having a gun is terrifying - apparently, but no concern at all that George Zimmerman is still carrying around a concealed firearm.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:08 PM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:08 PM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
The NRO cartoon is indefensible, but that blog's interpretation of Brooks's article strikes me as so uncharitable it borders on disingenuous. The "all sorts of people" is fairly obviously referring to people like George Zimmerman.
Brooks explicitly asks "do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here..." "What happened here" involved an armed white Hispanic person and an unarmed black person. Unless we are talking about some perceived bias Brooks has against white Hispanics, of which I see zero evidence, I think the complaint here is illegitimate.
posted by dsfan at 12:15 PM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Brooks explicitly asks "do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here..." "What happened here" involved an armed white Hispanic person and an unarmed black person. Unless we are talking about some perceived bias Brooks has against white Hispanics, of which I see zero evidence, I think the complaint here is illegitimate.
posted by dsfan at 12:15 PM on July 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think the "point on SYG" that was so clarifying for Brooks was this:
"I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?"
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:20 PM on July 21, 2013
"I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?"
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:20 PM on July 21, 2013
That NRO cartoon is almost beyond belief.
That sort of thing is ongoing meme in certain unreasonable circles. See, it's black racism that got Trayvon Martin killed*, the constance fanning of racial flames by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. All of that goes hand in hand with the the 'epidemic' of blacks killing white, which the media will never tell you about.
So much is shared via Facebook, god bless'em.
* Here's an article with that thought: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/black-racism-killed-trayvon-martin-2682824.html. I'm not linking to it, but feel free to copy and paste it, if you want a buffet of crazy. "Bonus points" because it's a black conservative saying it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:21 PM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
That sort of thing is ongoing meme in certain unreasonable circles. See, it's black racism that got Trayvon Martin killed*, the constance fanning of racial flames by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. All of that goes hand in hand with the the 'epidemic' of blacks killing white, which the media will never tell you about.
So much is shared via Facebook, god bless'em.
* Here's an article with that thought: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/black-racism-killed-trayvon-martin-2682824.html. I'm not linking to it, but feel free to copy and paste it, if you want a buffet of crazy. "Bonus points" because it's a black conservative saying it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:21 PM on July 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
I think the "point on SYG" that was so clarifying for Brooks was this:
"I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?"
I don't think so, and I think the blog author quite dishonestly only quotes half of what Obama said about Stand Your Ground to leave people with this impression. From Obama's full remarks:
posted by dsfan at 12:27 PM on July 21, 2013
"I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?"
I don't think so, and I think the blog author quite dishonestly only quotes half of what Obama said about Stand Your Ground to leave people with this impression. From Obama's full remarks:
I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?It's just not the case that "the point" in Obama's remarks about Stand Your Ground was about Trayvon Martin possibly being armed. If the only thing Obama had said about it was the example of Martin being armed, this interpretation might make sense. But it wasn't.
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
posted by dsfan at 12:27 PM on July 21, 2013
Port cop to be terminated for Trayvon Martin target
posted by homunculus at 12:30 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by homunculus at 12:30 PM on July 21, 2013
Ugh. If I were a gun owner and member of the NRA, I'd be mortified to have that waste of skin positioning himself as my ally and spokesperson.
posted by palomar at 12:36 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by palomar at 12:36 PM on July 21, 2013
Wow, a whole lotta class going around over this.
posted by localroger at 12:43 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by localroger at 12:43 PM on July 21, 2013
That huffpo video on Ted Nugent talking about suing Trayvon's parents was shit. Here's a link to Ted in all his glory.
(I hate, hate, hate watching a video in which someone talks about an article rather than quoting from it. And I really hate watching a video in which that someone uses the word "basically" basically every twenty seconds.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:58 PM on July 21, 2013
(I hate, hate, hate watching a video in which someone talks about an article rather than quoting from it. And I really hate watching a video in which that someone uses the word "basically" basically every twenty seconds.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:58 PM on July 21, 2013
Bonus on the Nugent diatribe: You can read all the comments about how much better our country would be if Ted Nugent were president.
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:03 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:03 PM on July 21, 2013
"White supremacy has taught him that all people of color are threats irrespective of their behavior. Capitalism has taught him that, at all costs, his property can and must be protected. Patriarchy has taught him that his masculinity has to be proved by the willingness to conquer fear through aggression; that it would be unmanly to ask questions before taking action. Mass media then brings us the news of this in a newspeak manner that sounds almost jocular and celebratory, as though no tragedy has happened, as though the sacrifice of a young life was necessary to uphold property values and white patriarchal honor. Viewers are encouraged to feel sympathy for the white male home owner who made a mistake. The fact that this mistake led to the violent death of an innocent young man does not register; the narrative is worded in a manner that encourages viewers to identify with the one who made the mistake by doing what we are led to feel we might all do to “protect our property at all costs from any sense of perceived threat.” This is what the worship of death looks like."
bell hooks, from All About Love (2001), written regarding the shooting of Yoshi Hattori (and his killer's acquittal).
posted by cashman at 2:05 PM on July 21, 2013 [24 favorites]
bell hooks, from All About Love (2001), written regarding the shooting of Yoshi Hattori (and his killer's acquittal).
posted by cashman at 2:05 PM on July 21, 2013 [24 favorites]
Stay classy, National Review!
That cartoon is despicable. I can't think of strong enough words to say about it. Fucking despicable (still not enough).
posted by torticat at 2:54 PM on July 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
That cartoon is despicable. I can't think of strong enough words to say about it. Fucking despicable (still not enough).
posted by torticat at 2:54 PM on July 21, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh my god I was trying to guess what the cartoon might be but the actual cartoon was so much worse than anything I came up with.
posted by Justinian at 3:24 PM on July 21, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:24 PM on July 21, 2013 [8 favorites]
The price we pay for freedom of speech.. pretty ugly out there. Glad we can say how ugly it is, and more.
posted by snaparapans at 3:47 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 3:47 PM on July 21, 2013
You seem to be under the impression that if someone is charged with and acquitted by one entity (e.g. the state) for the commission of Crime A, they are immune from investigation of and arrest for the commission of separate, but related, Crime B by another entity (the Feds). That's not how it works.
That's because they want him left alone because he "did nothing wrong" the "double jeopardy" and "throwing stuff until it sticks" crap just rings of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE. The problem these people have with it honestly seems like it isn't with some sort of legal double jeopardy, but that this is some sort of witch hunt by people who want to "force the situation" or something who have a vendetta against him.
They're trying to reframe the discussion away from what he did and onto how he's now being treated. And fuck that.
posted by emptythought at 3:48 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
That's because they want him left alone because he "did nothing wrong" the "double jeopardy" and "throwing stuff until it sticks" crap just rings of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE. The problem these people have with it honestly seems like it isn't with some sort of legal double jeopardy, but that this is some sort of witch hunt by people who want to "force the situation" or something who have a vendetta against him.
They're trying to reframe the discussion away from what he did and onto how he's now being treated. And fuck that.
posted by emptythought at 3:48 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
"... They're trying to reframe the discussion away from what he did and onto how he's now being treated. And fuck that."
posted by emptythought at 6:48 PM on July 21
Not necessarily, emptythought. I think most people with significant legal training that have spoken out on the matter, including now Obama and Holder, consider Federal prosecution of Zimmerman pretty unlikely. But some high profile people are continuing to call for it, as a means of ..., oh, however I've tried to end this sentence in the last 10 minutes, is only, at best, speculation. I don't know why in the face of Obama and Holder's remarks, people are still demonstrating and calling for further Federal prosecution of Zimmerman.
But suppose cooler heads do not prevail at the DOJ, and Federal criminal charges are filed, on no better evidence than we so far have in the public record of Zimmerman's Florida state murder trial. And then further suppose, as unlikely as it might seem to you now, that Zimmerman were again acquitted, of even Federal civil rights violations of Martin.
In what emotional and moral Well of Souls would that leave Martin's most outspoken supporters? Where could they peaceably, productively take that outcome, 2 years or more from now, having put another 2 years of themselves into following a further extension of the case?
posted by paulsc at 4:42 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 6:48 PM on July 21
Not necessarily, emptythought. I think most people with significant legal training that have spoken out on the matter, including now Obama and Holder, consider Federal prosecution of Zimmerman pretty unlikely. But some high profile people are continuing to call for it, as a means of ..., oh, however I've tried to end this sentence in the last 10 minutes, is only, at best, speculation. I don't know why in the face of Obama and Holder's remarks, people are still demonstrating and calling for further Federal prosecution of Zimmerman.
But suppose cooler heads do not prevail at the DOJ, and Federal criminal charges are filed, on no better evidence than we so far have in the public record of Zimmerman's Florida state murder trial. And then further suppose, as unlikely as it might seem to you now, that Zimmerman were again acquitted, of even Federal civil rights violations of Martin.
In what emotional and moral Well of Souls would that leave Martin's most outspoken supporters? Where could they peaceably, productively take that outcome, 2 years or more from now, having put another 2 years of themselves into following a further extension of the case?
posted by paulsc at 4:42 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't expect the Feds would charge Zimmerman unless they were reasonably sure they could secure a conviction. And I don't expect they are reasonably sure they could secure a conviction, so I doubt they'll charge him. We can wonder what, hypothetically, would happen if they did charge him and he was acquitted again but that's all it is; wild speculation.
posted by Justinian at 4:59 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by Justinian at 4:59 PM on July 21, 2013
You seem to be under the impression that if someone is charged with and acquitted by one entity (e.g. the state) for the commission of Crime A, they are immune from investigation of and arrest for the commission of separate, but related, Crime B by another entity (the Feds). That's not how it works.
You've no need to explain the separate-sovereigns doctrine to me, thanks. I know how it works, and it's not like anything I've said here indicates otherwise.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:29 PM on July 21, 2013
You've no need to explain the separate-sovereigns doctrine to me, thanks. I know how it works, and it's not like anything I've said here indicates otherwise.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:29 PM on July 21, 2013
Where could they peaceably, productively take that outcome, 2 years or more from now...
It would be great to have a grass roots movement to replace SYG laws with laws, 'Trayvon's Law' perhaps, that are capable of deterring someone like Zimmerman from stalking and killing a teenager for "just walking around looking about" within his own gated community while it's raining.
I suspect there will be more SYG killings within the next two years to focus the country's attention.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:46 PM on July 21, 2013
It would be great to have a grass roots movement to replace SYG laws with laws, 'Trayvon's Law' perhaps, that are capable of deterring someone like Zimmerman from stalking and killing a teenager for "just walking around looking about" within his own gated community while it's raining.
I suspect there will be more SYG killings within the next two years to focus the country's attention.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:46 PM on July 21, 2013
Grover Norquist, of all people discusses SYG with Bill Maher.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:28 PM on July 21, 2013
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:28 PM on July 21, 2013
Can we all decide to stop giving a shit what Nugent says? He adds nothing but frothing bile to any conversation.
posted by emjaybee at 10:09 PM on July 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 10:09 PM on July 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
Illegal hunting charges
In September 2009, Nugent embarked on a hunt near Somerset, El Dorado County, California. He was accompanied by a guide and a cameraman, filming for his Outdoor Channel show "Spirit of the Wild." The video taken appeared in an episode of the show first broadcast on February 9, 2010. California Fish and Game wardens who watched the broadcast noticed that it showed Nugent killing a very young buck which had been attracted by commercial bait. Both the killing of such a young deer and the use of bait are crimes under California state law. On August 13, 2010, he pled no contest in Yuba County to two misdemeanors: illegally baiting a deer, and failing to have a deer tag signed by a government official after a kill. He was fined USD $1,750 by the court and was banned from hunting in California until June 2012. In April 2012 Nugent signed a plea bargaining agreement to plead guilty to two misdemeanors for illegally taking a bear after shooting one earlier at a bait station. He will be fined $10,000, banned from hunting in Alaska and on Federal land for one year and must complete two years on federal probation.[44]
Oh, big MAN, Ted.
posted by telstar at 10:44 PM on July 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
In September 2009, Nugent embarked on a hunt near Somerset, El Dorado County, California. He was accompanied by a guide and a cameraman, filming for his Outdoor Channel show "Spirit of the Wild." The video taken appeared in an episode of the show first broadcast on February 9, 2010. California Fish and Game wardens who watched the broadcast noticed that it showed Nugent killing a very young buck which had been attracted by commercial bait. Both the killing of such a young deer and the use of bait are crimes under California state law. On August 13, 2010, he pled no contest in Yuba County to two misdemeanors: illegally baiting a deer, and failing to have a deer tag signed by a government official after a kill. He was fined USD $1,750 by the court and was banned from hunting in California until June 2012. In April 2012 Nugent signed a plea bargaining agreement to plead guilty to two misdemeanors for illegally taking a bear after shooting one earlier at a bait station. He will be fined $10,000, banned from hunting in Alaska and on Federal land for one year and must complete two years on federal probation.[44]
Oh, big MAN, Ted.
posted by telstar at 10:44 PM on July 21, 2013 [5 favorites]
dsfan: " If the only thing Obama had said about it was the example of Martin being armed, this interpretation might make sense. But it wasn't."
And if the only thing Brooks was responding to was Obama's remarks, your interpretation might make sense. But it wasn't.
Brooks' comments occurred in the context of a radio segment about the speech that we can all listen to and read the transcript of. He was responding to a point raised by E.J. Dionne, and that point was a direct reference to the section of the speech where Obama talked about Martin "standing his ground." All you're really doing here is trying to shoehorn in your own interpretation of what part of Obama's speech Brooks was referring to.
Furthermore, accepting your interpretation requires a belief that Brooks had never at any time prior to Obama's remarks thought about whether "Stand Your Ground" laws are good or bad, and that he just happened to start thinking about "all sorts of people" getting access to guns and "shoot[ing] off without legal protections" in response to a speech where Obama raised the specter of black youths carrying weapons and "standing their ground." It also requires believing that there's no way Brooks could have been saying "what happened here" to mean "what happened here if the races were reversed, as in Obama's hypothetical." And, of course, it also requires ignoring David Brooks' history of racism in his columns.
But, hey, anything's possible, I guess.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:05 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
And if the only thing Brooks was responding to was Obama's remarks, your interpretation might make sense. But it wasn't.
Brooks' comments occurred in the context of a radio segment about the speech that we can all listen to and read the transcript of. He was responding to a point raised by E.J. Dionne, and that point was a direct reference to the section of the speech where Obama talked about Martin "standing his ground." All you're really doing here is trying to shoehorn in your own interpretation of what part of Obama's speech Brooks was referring to.
Furthermore, accepting your interpretation requires a belief that Brooks had never at any time prior to Obama's remarks thought about whether "Stand Your Ground" laws are good or bad, and that he just happened to start thinking about "all sorts of people" getting access to guns and "shoot[ing] off without legal protections" in response to a speech where Obama raised the specter of black youths carrying weapons and "standing their ground." It also requires believing that there's no way Brooks could have been saying "what happened here" to mean "what happened here if the races were reversed, as in Obama's hypothetical." And, of course, it also requires ignoring David Brooks' history of racism in his columns.
But, hey, anything's possible, I guess.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:05 PM on July 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
"As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?"
Florida law
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:06 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Florida law
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:06 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
All you're really doing here is trying to shoehorn in your own interpretation of what part of Obama's speech Brooks was referring to.
Maybe, and you're right that Dionne referred to the Martin-being-armed aspect, but again, here is the contentious sentence: "But the argument he made about, you know, do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here, people walking with guns feeling free to shoot off without legal protections, without the normal legal process?"
Since the bolded part cannot refer to Martin being armed (since that's not what happened here!), the blog's (and apparently your) interpretation necessarily requires that Brooks constructed a sentence where the second clause refers to a completely separate argument than the first clause. I find that reasonably implausible.
posted by dsfan at 6:41 AM on July 22, 2013
Maybe, and you're right that Dionne referred to the Martin-being-armed aspect, but again, here is the contentious sentence: "But the argument he made about, you know, do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here, people walking with guns feeling free to shoot off without legal protections, without the normal legal process?"
Since the bolded part cannot refer to Martin being armed (since that's not what happened here!), the blog's (and apparently your) interpretation necessarily requires that Brooks constructed a sentence where the second clause refers to a completely separate argument than the first clause. I find that reasonably implausible.
posted by dsfan at 6:41 AM on July 22, 2013
dsfan: "but again, here is the contentious sentence: "But the argument he made about, you know, do we really want all sorts of people, do we really want what happened here, people walking with guns feeling free to shoot off without legal protections, without the normal legal process?""
Why is it so hard to believe that Brooks was just following Obama's hypothetical about Martin being the one who stood his ground, which had just been the topic of conversation in the radio segment? "What happened here" need not be as specific as you suggest. If I see a car accident on the way to work in the morning and I say "I hope what happened here doesn't happen again", you're probably not going to assume I'm referring to the same two drivers, or drivers of the same ethnic backgrounds. I'm just referring to a car accident, or, in Brooks' case, a shooting.
Believe what you want to, but don't pretend your explanation is the more rational one, especially given Brooks' history of factually-challenged retrograde thinking on racial issues.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:50 AM on July 22, 2013
Why is it so hard to believe that Brooks was just following Obama's hypothetical about Martin being the one who stood his ground, which had just been the topic of conversation in the radio segment? "What happened here" need not be as specific as you suggest. If I see a car accident on the way to work in the morning and I say "I hope what happened here doesn't happen again", you're probably not going to assume I'm referring to the same two drivers, or drivers of the same ethnic backgrounds. I'm just referring to a car accident, or, in Brooks' case, a shooting.
Believe what you want to, but don't pretend your explanation is the more rational one, especially given Brooks' history of factually-challenged retrograde thinking on racial issues.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:50 AM on July 22, 2013
Actually, Stand Your Ground Played a Major Role in the Trayvon Martin Case
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:11 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:11 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue
posted by BobbyVan at 9:56 AM on July 22, 2013
posted by BobbyVan at 9:56 AM on July 22, 2013
Well that almost makes up for his serial abuse of women, general tendency to resort to violence, abuse of 911 phone calls, and stalking and murder of an unarmed teenager!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:07 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:07 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]
....his serial abuse of women....
Why does it not surprise me that the people who are now all up in arms because "omigod trayvon was investigated as a possible jewel thief" are giving Zimmerman a pass on domestic violence convictions?....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:24 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
Why does it not surprise me that the people who are now all up in arms because "omigod trayvon was investigated as a possible jewel thief" are giving Zimmerman a pass on domestic violence convictions?....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:24 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue
Good for him. The ABC report is wrong about the location. In that report it said I4 & 417 and I so figured it must have been that turn from 417 to I4. It's treacherous. If you look on google maps its right where the little "55c" is. It's a single lane, and the way its set up the angles make it unclear that the turn you're about to make is that abrupt.
But this report says it was near I4 & HE Thomas. I wonder how they managed to flip their car there, but I've seen weirder. Looks like Zimmerman did not see the incident happen. Some other guy was there along with zimmerman and they both helped the people get out of the car, and there were no injuries.
posted by cashman at 11:21 AM on July 22, 2013
Good for him. The ABC report is wrong about the location. In that report it said I4 & 417 and I so figured it must have been that turn from 417 to I4. It's treacherous. If you look on google maps its right where the little "55c" is. It's a single lane, and the way its set up the angles make it unclear that the turn you're about to make is that abrupt.
But this report says it was near I4 & HE Thomas. I wonder how they managed to flip their car there, but I've seen weirder. Looks like Zimmerman did not see the incident happen. Some other guy was there along with zimmerman and they both helped the people get out of the car, and there were no injuries.
The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office says George Zimmerman and another man helped a family of four get out of their vehicle after it overturned last week in Sanford.Still racially profiled, stalked, and killed a kid, but this is one millionth of the deeds he'll need to do to try to make up for it.
Deputies said the accident happened Wednesday around 5:45 p.m. in the area of 1-4 and State Road 46 in Sanford.
Investigators said a blue Ford Explorer SUV with a man and woman and their two children travelled off the road and rolled over.
When deputies arrived they found Zimmerman and another man with the family and deputies said the two men helped the family out of the vehicle.
The sheriff’s office says Zimmerman did not witness the crash and left the scene after speaking with deputies.
No one in the SUV was injured.
posted by cashman at 11:21 AM on July 22, 2013
are giving Zimmerman a pass on domestic violence convictions
Err.. what domestic violence convictions? AFAIK he and his ex fiance had reciprocal restraining orders granted but that's not a domestic violence conviction.
posted by Justinian at 11:34 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
Err.. what domestic violence convictions? AFAIK he and his ex fiance had reciprocal restraining orders granted but that's not a domestic violence conviction.
posted by Justinian at 11:34 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
I was riffing off the "serial abuser of women" observation. Which is still worse than "got questioned by his school about some missing jewelry but they realized he didn't do anything."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:44 AM on July 22, 2013
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:44 AM on July 22, 2013
Trayvon Martin Case: George Zimmerman Was 'Jekyll And Hyde,' Former Co-Worker Says
Zimmerman, the 28-year-old Sanford, Fla., neighborhood watch volunteer who shot the unarmed 17-year-old Martin to death last month, was fired from a job securing illegal house parties for “being too aggressive,” according to the New York Daily News, which quoted a former colleague of Zimmerman’s. According to the co-worker, Zimmerman worked for two agencies that provided security for house parties from 2001 to 2005.posted by Golden Eternity at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
“Usually he was just a cool guy,” said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped.” The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
[...]
Also in 2005, Zimmerman was involved in a bitter domestic violence incident with his ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo. In that case, Zuazo filed for a restraining order against Zimmerman, who she said snatched her cell phone from her hand and pushed her during an argument. The next day, both filed court petitions accusing the other of violence.
According to the Miami Herald, Zuazo said that three years earlier, Zimmerman attacked her while the two were driving to a counseling session. Zuazo said she popped her gum in his face and he repeatedly smacked her in the face. In January 2002, she added, Zimmerman became enraged that she had come home late. They wrestled and he threw her on the bed, smacking her, according to the newspaper.
NYTimes: As the two were breaking up, they pushed each other forcefully, and he kicked her dog in the stomach, she said. The dog bit him.
Good dog. Who's a good dog?
posted by maggieb at 11:53 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
Good dog. Who's a good dog?
posted by maggieb at 11:53 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]
Trayvon Martin Case: George Zimmerman Was 'Jekyll And Hyde,' Former Co-Worker Says
It's so good for this to come out now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:04 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
It's so good for this to come out now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:04 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
Yeah, maybe some sort of federal law enforcement agency should get invovled with this and provide a way for people to report crimes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:10 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:10 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
'“Usually he was just a cool guy,” said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped.” The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”'
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:11 PM on July 22, 2013
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”'
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:11 PM on July 22, 2013
This is your hero, conservatives.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:12 PM on July 22, 2013
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:12 PM on July 22, 2013
It's so good for this to come out now.
That article was from March, 2012. I wonder why this story doesn't come up in the FBI report.
Zimmerman clearly says "fucking coons."
Seriously, there's nothing there.
I went back and listened to it again, and I guess I can make out "punks" as well. Okay, it is not so clear. But I still think that Zimmerman likely told the dispatcher to have the police call him instead of meet him because he decided to seek out Trayvon. I don't see how anyone can be so sure about what exactly happened after that.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:26 PM on July 22, 2013
That article was from March, 2012. I wonder why this story doesn't come up in the FBI report.
Zimmerman clearly says "fucking coons."
Seriously, there's nothing there.
I went back and listened to it again, and I guess I can make out "punks" as well. Okay, it is not so clear. But I still think that Zimmerman likely told the dispatcher to have the police call him instead of meet him because he decided to seek out Trayvon. I don't see how anyone can be so sure about what exactly happened after that.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:26 PM on July 22, 2013
Depressing polls are coming out: "Among African Americans, 87 percent say the shooting was unjustified; among whites, just 33 percent say so."
posted by naju at 12:28 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by naju at 12:28 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]
That article was from March, 2012.
Whoops, hadn't heard it before, just thought it was something new. Was it brought up at trial?
"Among African Americans, 87 percent say the shooting was unjustified; among whites, just 33 percent say so."
This doesn't surprise me. There really are vast cultural differences between whites and blacks in America and a lot of whites just do fathom that or consider black culture inherently inferior or wrong. Combine that with class assumptions and you've got two different worlds.
For instance, the juror who wanted to know why a 17 year old boy was out at 7pm night. Talk about a cocooned sense of right and wrong...
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:40 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
Whoops, hadn't heard it before, just thought it was something new. Was it brought up at trial?
"Among African Americans, 87 percent say the shooting was unjustified; among whites, just 33 percent say so."
This doesn't surprise me. There really are vast cultural differences between whites and blacks in America and a lot of whites just do fathom that or consider black culture inherently inferior or wrong. Combine that with class assumptions and you've got two different worlds.
For instance, the juror who wanted to know why a 17 year old boy was out at 7pm night. Talk about a cocooned sense of right and wrong...
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:40 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
Sean Hannity: Obama like Trayvon because ‘he smoked pot’ and ‘did a little blow’
posted by homunculus at 1:01 PM on July 22, 2013
posted by homunculus at 1:01 PM on July 22, 2013
Hannity meant that as a slam, but it just makes me think to say that Zimmerman shot what could have been our future president sometime around 2036, to death. Over nothing.
posted by cashman at 1:20 PM on July 22, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by cashman at 1:20 PM on July 22, 2013 [14 favorites]
Actually, Stand Your Ground Played a Major Role in the Trayvon Martin Case
It absolutely did, and as with kagredons video game bosses comment, this has come up in this thread over and over. Search the thread for the jury instructions. See for instance, this post when the thread was just a lil babby.
Why does it not surprise me that the people who are now all up in arms because "omigod trayvon was investigated as a possible jewel thief" are giving Zimmerman a pass on domestic violence convictions?....
There's two reasons i've thought of, and they both piss me off.
* First of all, because as it was in the 50's, 60's, etc domestic violence is still seen as one of those things like talking about someone elses sex life. It's private, and you're a "dick" for bringing it up and shining a public light on it. It's something embarrassing that's between the people involved and maybe the cops. And a lot of dick swinging gun nut types are also big buyers in to the whole "THAT'S BETWEEN ME AND MY WOMAN STAY OUT OF IT COPPER" keep-yer-laws-off-my-body shit when it's convenient to them, and this is one of those times.
* Because it's a "derail" and just an attempt to "smear his character!" despite the fact that they went above and beyond to olympic athlete levels to find the tiniest little tidbits they could to smear the fuck out of Martin.
Barf buckets next to the toolbox under the sink.
I was riffing off the "serial abuser of women" observation.
Yea, let's stick to what he's actually done and been convicted with and not exaggerate it. There's enough shitty exaggerations and lying swirling around this situation as it is.
Check out, for example, the quotes posted here. Hyperbole is not needed to make this guy sound like an absolute human shit toilet.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”'
I don't how admissible in court this would have been, but if at all possible(and in my conspiracy theory mind, if they were actually trying to get a conviction) they ABSOLUTELY should have been seeking out as many people like this as possible to testify about his character and how he's just a total rageoid tiresome wifebeatin' barfightin' dude like this. I think everyone has known a couple guys who sound exactly like this. They always have a "rage" meter slowly building up in any situation that a normal person would even get slightly annoyed in and will absolutely fly off the handle in not-that-big-of-a-deal scenarios if there's any stressors on their mind, including just elements of the situation.
There's also plenty to be said here for this, the DV stuff, and i think something else i've seen in the thread creating a pattern of anger directed at women, but that's another discussion and story entirely. My main point is that he's someone who gets angry too easily, and who has very uncontrolled anger issues and smashes/shoots whatever is around him until he feels better. Then he looks at the rubble and has a reaction somewhere between "good, fuck that shit" and "oh god, i'm going to get in trouble for this". NOT "what did i do? this is horrible! why did i do that!", but just "how am i going to get away with this?"
It's pure little kid shit, as billyfleetwood said, A "story of how even though he was playing ball in the house, the broken lamp is in no way his fault." This is the kind of bullshit abusive assholes with anger issues come up with after the fact.
I have a remarkably easy time believing that if he had gone to prison, and wasn't put in some kind of protective custody area with the child molesters, he would have been involved in some rage-driven violent altercation fairly quickly. This dudes life is pretty much lived in the blank spaces between violent altercations and rage attacks. As it is for most abusive asshole types. It's a total incredible hulk "the secret is, i'm always angry" type of thing.
"Usually a cool guy" indeed.
but it just makes me think to say that Zimmerman shot what could have been our future president sometime around 2036, to death. Over nothing.
Maybe his little brother will grow up to be a gun control and civil rights leader and eventually run for office? Having your older brother get shot outside your house arguably partially in a bid to lead the killer away from your house and save your own life is borderline superhero backstory shit. That's the kind of stuff that could motivate you for the rest of your life to fight to change the world around you. Like roll the boulder up the hill full speed until your last breath kind of motivation.
posted by emptythought at 1:34 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
It absolutely did, and as with kagredons video game bosses comment, this has come up in this thread over and over. Search the thread for the jury instructions. See for instance, this post when the thread was just a lil babby.
Why does it not surprise me that the people who are now all up in arms because "omigod trayvon was investigated as a possible jewel thief" are giving Zimmerman a pass on domestic violence convictions?....
There's two reasons i've thought of, and they both piss me off.
* First of all, because as it was in the 50's, 60's, etc domestic violence is still seen as one of those things like talking about someone elses sex life. It's private, and you're a "dick" for bringing it up and shining a public light on it. It's something embarrassing that's between the people involved and maybe the cops. And a lot of dick swinging gun nut types are also big buyers in to the whole "THAT'S BETWEEN ME AND MY WOMAN STAY OUT OF IT COPPER" keep-yer-laws-off-my-body shit when it's convenient to them, and this is one of those times.
* Because it's a "derail" and just an attempt to "smear his character!" despite the fact that they went above and beyond to olympic athlete levels to find the tiniest little tidbits they could to smear the fuck out of Martin.
Barf buckets next to the toolbox under the sink.
I was riffing off the "serial abuser of women" observation.
Yea, let's stick to what he's actually done and been convicted with and not exaggerate it. There's enough shitty exaggerations and lying swirling around this situation as it is.
Check out, for example, the quotes posted here. Hyperbole is not needed to make this guy sound like an absolute human shit toilet.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”'
I don't how admissible in court this would have been, but if at all possible(and in my conspiracy theory mind, if they were actually trying to get a conviction) they ABSOLUTELY should have been seeking out as many people like this as possible to testify about his character and how he's just a total rageoid tiresome wifebeatin' barfightin' dude like this. I think everyone has known a couple guys who sound exactly like this. They always have a "rage" meter slowly building up in any situation that a normal person would even get slightly annoyed in and will absolutely fly off the handle in not-that-big-of-a-deal scenarios if there's any stressors on their mind, including just elements of the situation.
There's also plenty to be said here for this, the DV stuff, and i think something else i've seen in the thread creating a pattern of anger directed at women, but that's another discussion and story entirely. My main point is that he's someone who gets angry too easily, and who has very uncontrolled anger issues and smashes/shoots whatever is around him until he feels better. Then he looks at the rubble and has a reaction somewhere between "good, fuck that shit" and "oh god, i'm going to get in trouble for this". NOT "what did i do? this is horrible! why did i do that!", but just "how am i going to get away with this?"
It's pure little kid shit, as billyfleetwood said, A "story of how even though he was playing ball in the house, the broken lamp is in no way his fault." This is the kind of bullshit abusive assholes with anger issues come up with after the fact.
I have a remarkably easy time believing that if he had gone to prison, and wasn't put in some kind of protective custody area with the child molesters, he would have been involved in some rage-driven violent altercation fairly quickly. This dudes life is pretty much lived in the blank spaces between violent altercations and rage attacks. As it is for most abusive asshole types. It's a total incredible hulk "the secret is, i'm always angry" type of thing.
"Usually a cool guy" indeed.
but it just makes me think to say that Zimmerman shot what could have been our future president sometime around 2036, to death. Over nothing.
Maybe his little brother will grow up to be a gun control and civil rights leader and eventually run for office? Having your older brother get shot outside your house arguably partially in a bid to lead the killer away from your house and save your own life is borderline superhero backstory shit. That's the kind of stuff that could motivate you for the rest of your life to fight to change the world around you. Like roll the boulder up the hill full speed until your last breath kind of motivation.
posted by emptythought at 1:34 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]
Maybe his little brother will grow up to be a gun control and civil rights leader and eventually run for office? Having your older brother get shot outside your house arguably partially in a bid to lead the killer away from your house and save your own life is borderline superhero backstory shit. That's the kind of stuff that could motivate you for the rest of your life to fight to change the world around you. Like roll the boulder up the hill full speed until your last breath kind of motivation.
You want to talk about prosecutorial laziness/incompetence, here's a perfect example. This is an extremely plausible scenario (especially considering the defense had brought up Zimmerman's paranoia to protect him), and they were presenting a case to a jury made up mostly of mothers.
I hope his stepbrother becomes the Goddamn Batman.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:42 PM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]
You want to talk about prosecutorial laziness/incompetence, here's a perfect example. This is an extremely plausible scenario (especially considering the defense had brought up Zimmerman's paranoia to protect him), and they were presenting a case to a jury made up mostly of mothers.
I hope his stepbrother becomes the Goddamn Batman.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:42 PM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]
Bonus BrainFart from my mental cloaca,
I wonder if the woman that he chucked through the air was white? I wonder what her description of the events would be?
There is seriously no one at this point involved tertiarily in this case that i'd like to hear from more than that woman right now. I'm going to dream of a link popping up in this thread in the next couple days of $NEWSCHANNEL or some HuffPo type blog having an interview with her. Unlike the jurrors gross attention grab, i think that hearing her experience with Zimmerman would be fascinating.
It's one of those "chance there's more to this story: 500%" kinda things.
I think it's pretty damn telling that none of these news channels that seemed to be farting out every little thing they could find about Martin's life skipped over digging in to Zimmermans. Because i have a feeling what we've heard so far in this thread is the absolute tip of the iceberg. Rageoholic dudes like that leave a path of destruction through their lives. The "anger problems" guys like that i've met who were +/- 30-40 you could probably fill a highschool gym with people who've had some awful experience with them.
So it really makes it seem like picking a story and narrative and then cherry-picking the stuff that fit within those brackets to me that they ignored all the ridiculous fucking toddler in an adults body stuff Zimmerman has done.
As a side note to anyone who thinks that story his former coworker told about him assaulting that woman and only getting fired seems implausible, it is almost impossible to get in criminal trouble as a security guard at a club/bar/venue/etc. Whenever you hear about them getting in trouble, it's someone they assaulted filing a civil suit against the venue. You have to like, put someone in the ICU on a ventilator or kill someone or something to go to jail. Security guards and bouncers constantly beat people up pretty fucking bad and the cops show up and just go "lol here let us wheel away this drunk asshole, looks like he fell down the stairs". They're treated almost like they're deputized and the police treat their version of events as the defacto truth. If the cops even showed up in that situation, i bet they just went "yea, don't do that in the future" and then his boss fired him the next day. There's a lot of security guards and bouncers out there who are totally cool, but like cops, the sizeable minority that aren't seem to just get a free pass.
It's disgustingly, almost the perfect job for someone like this who just wants to "release their anger". Unless they take it way too far they'll be fine. And certain venues/bars/clubs in my area are notorious for their security who will just wail on people for no reason. I've been assaulted by security guards and just gone home knowing there was fucking nothing i could do.
posted by emptythought at 5:46 PM on July 22, 2013 [7 favorites]
I wonder if the woman that he chucked through the air was white? I wonder what her description of the events would be?
There is seriously no one at this point involved tertiarily in this case that i'd like to hear from more than that woman right now. I'm going to dream of a link popping up in this thread in the next couple days of $NEWSCHANNEL or some HuffPo type blog having an interview with her. Unlike the jurrors gross attention grab, i think that hearing her experience with Zimmerman would be fascinating.
It's one of those "chance there's more to this story: 500%" kinda things.
I think it's pretty damn telling that none of these news channels that seemed to be farting out every little thing they could find about Martin's life skipped over digging in to Zimmermans. Because i have a feeling what we've heard so far in this thread is the absolute tip of the iceberg. Rageoholic dudes like that leave a path of destruction through their lives. The "anger problems" guys like that i've met who were +/- 30-40 you could probably fill a highschool gym with people who've had some awful experience with them.
So it really makes it seem like picking a story and narrative and then cherry-picking the stuff that fit within those brackets to me that they ignored all the ridiculous fucking toddler in an adults body stuff Zimmerman has done.
As a side note to anyone who thinks that story his former coworker told about him assaulting that woman and only getting fired seems implausible, it is almost impossible to get in criminal trouble as a security guard at a club/bar/venue/etc. Whenever you hear about them getting in trouble, it's someone they assaulted filing a civil suit against the venue. You have to like, put someone in the ICU on a ventilator or kill someone or something to go to jail. Security guards and bouncers constantly beat people up pretty fucking bad and the cops show up and just go "lol here let us wheel away this drunk asshole, looks like he fell down the stairs". They're treated almost like they're deputized and the police treat their version of events as the defacto truth. If the cops even showed up in that situation, i bet they just went "yea, don't do that in the future" and then his boss fired him the next day. There's a lot of security guards and bouncers out there who are totally cool, but like cops, the sizeable minority that aren't seem to just get a free pass.
It's disgustingly, almost the perfect job for someone like this who just wants to "release their anger". Unless they take it way too far they'll be fine. And certain venues/bars/clubs in my area are notorious for their security who will just wail on people for no reason. I've been assaulted by security guards and just gone home knowing there was fucking nothing i could do.
posted by emptythought at 5:46 PM on July 22, 2013 [7 favorites]
A Cop's Take on the Verdict, Daily Kos diarist, former policeman, current mental health counselor discusses cops, security guards, bouncers, wannabe cops and the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict
posted by maggieb at 9:22 PM on July 22, 2013 [17 favorites]
posted by maggieb at 9:22 PM on July 22, 2013 [17 favorites]
If you're wondering whether or not, or to what degree George Zimmerman was motived by his own internalized racist beliefs, consider that of all the things George Zimmerman did that evening, he did not simply roll down his car window and offer his neighbor a ride home out of the rain.
You're kind of loading the premise here. They were strangers, and we are generally told not to give rides to strangers.
And how would the seventeen year old boy react to that offer? Well, on the few occasions when I as a 17 year old male was invited into cars by, for lack of a better phrase, creepy ass crackers, I made some assumptions and said no. None ever left the car to follow me, and I expect I would have run if they had. Some of my more swaggering coevals, I imagine, might have stood their ground, probably thrown a punch.
Now if GZ had been wearing an official looking orange day-glo Sam Brown safety patrol belt, if his profile had projected a junior authority figure, things might have gone differently. People do judge by appearances.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:19 AM on July 23, 2013
You're kind of loading the premise here. They were strangers, and we are generally told not to give rides to strangers.
And how would the seventeen year old boy react to that offer? Well, on the few occasions when I as a 17 year old male was invited into cars by, for lack of a better phrase, creepy ass crackers, I made some assumptions and said no. None ever left the car to follow me, and I expect I would have run if they had. Some of my more swaggering coevals, I imagine, might have stood their ground, probably thrown a punch.
Now if GZ had been wearing an official looking orange day-glo Sam Brown safety patrol belt, if his profile had projected a junior authority figure, things might have gone differently. People do judge by appearances.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:19 AM on July 23, 2013
People do judge by appearances.
That does seem to be one of the major roads we took to this place, yes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:03 AM on July 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
That does seem to be one of the major roads we took to this place, yes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:03 AM on July 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
If that’s sarcasm, it ill becomes you, and frankly somewhat baffles me. I was offering a perspective I’ve not seen in this thread, and indeed, a suggestion on how tragedies like this might be avoided in the future. What exactly was your point?
posted by IndigoJones at 10:13 AM on July 23, 2013
posted by IndigoJones at 10:13 AM on July 23, 2013
I don't think I'm loading my premise here. SUPPOSEDLY Zimmerman went door-to-door to his neighbors for outreach in his neighborhood watch activities.
I wonder why, given that the Martins lived there LONGER THAN ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman hadn't introduced himself as part of his neighborhood watch activities, and invited them to participate.
posted by mikelieman at 10:20 AM on July 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
I wonder why, given that the Martins lived there LONGER THAN ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman hadn't introduced himself as part of his neighborhood watch activities, and invited them to participate.
posted by mikelieman at 10:20 AM on July 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
They were strangers
Strangers existing within a culture troubled by racism. See Danielle Allen's Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education for a good discussion of how racism influences our social relations. An excerpt of Allen's book is available here.
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:32 AM on July 23, 2013
Strangers existing within a culture troubled by racism. See Danielle Allen's Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education for a good discussion of how racism influences our social relations. An excerpt of Allen's book is available here.
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:32 AM on July 23, 2013
Ta-Nehisi Coates again, this time on more racism from the National Review (yes, beyond reprinting that horribly racist cartoon): It's The Racism, Stupid
If I were to tell you that I only employ Asian-Americans to do my taxes because "Asian-Americans do better on the math SAT," you would simply question my sensitivity, but my mental faculties. That is because you would understand that in making an individual decision, employing a ancestral class of millions is not very intelligent. Moreover, were I to tell you I wanted my son to marry a Jewish woman because "Jews are really successful," you would understand that statement for the stupidity which it is.posted by zombieflanders at 11:09 AM on July 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
It would not be acceptable for me to make such suggestions (to say nothing of policy) in an enlightened society--not simply because they are "impolite" but because they betray an rote, incurious and addled intellect. There is no difference in my argument above, and the notion that black boys should be avoided because they are overrepresented in the violent crime stats. But one of the effects of racism is its tendency to justify stupidity.
[...]
It should come as no surprise that Victor Davis Hanson's generational advice has met with mixed results. But when you are more interested in a kind of bigoted nationalism than your actual safety, this is what happens.
These two strands--stupidity and racism--are inseparable. The pairing seem to find a home at National Review with some regularity. It's been a little over a year since the magazine cut ties with self-described racist John Derbyshire for basically writing the same thing that Victor Davis Hanson writes here. Hanson couldn't even be bothered with coming up with anything new. He just ripped off Derbyshire. His editors could evidently care less. A few days later the magazine cut ties with Robert Weissberg for offering pro tips to white nationalists. I'm not quite sure why they bothered with the kabuki. You are what your record says you are and at some point one must conclude that these are not one-offs, that the magazine which once blamed the Birmingham bombing on "a crazed Negro," is dealing with something more systemic, something bone-deep.
What exactly was your point?
Mostly bitterness at Zimmerman's racism and frustration at a horrible situation. I apologize if that sounded more pointed than I intended.
However, I don't think that, if Zimmerman was wearing a "Neighborhood Watch" sash things would have gone much differently. Young black men have little reason to trust police and even less reason to trust self-proclaimed pseudo-police. A central force in this whole sorry story is that Zimmerman was claiming semi-legal powers that he had no right to claim, and this led to murder. maggieb's "Cop's Take" above suggests that Zimmerman's attitude is not exactly uncommon on the periphery of law enforcement.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:26 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Mostly bitterness at Zimmerman's racism and frustration at a horrible situation. I apologize if that sounded more pointed than I intended.
However, I don't think that, if Zimmerman was wearing a "Neighborhood Watch" sash things would have gone much differently. Young black men have little reason to trust police and even less reason to trust self-proclaimed pseudo-police. A central force in this whole sorry story is that Zimmerman was claiming semi-legal powers that he had no right to claim, and this led to murder. maggieb's "Cop's Take" above suggests that Zimmerman's attitude is not exactly uncommon on the periphery of law enforcement.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:26 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
It appears Madonna, Kanye, Jay Z, Justin Timberlake & lots of others are set to join Stevie Wonder in boycotting Florida until SYG laws are abolished. Story still developing though.
posted by cashman at 11:58 AM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 11:58 AM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I wonder why, given that the Martins lived there LONGER THAN ZIMMERMAN, Zimmerman hadn't introduced himself as part of his neighborhood watch activities, and invited them to participate.
What information are you going off, there? Reuters had Tracy Martin (Trayvon Martin's father) not living there, but his girlfriend, Brandy Green - as he is still currently married to Alicia Stanley, Trayvon Martin's stepmom, and had separated from her only a few weeks before Trayvon's death (per Orlando Sentinel).
What information are you going off, there? Reuters had Tracy Martin (Trayvon Martin's father) not living there, but his girlfriend, Brandy Green - as he is still currently married to Alicia Stanley, Trayvon Martin's stepmom, and had separated from her only a few weeks before Trayvon's death (per Orlando Sentinel).
Martin, who was divorced from Trayvon's mother, Sybrina Fulton, in 1999, is a truck driver from Miami who has a long-distance relationship with Green, a resident of the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision in Sanford where Zimmerman also lived.posted by corb at 12:03 PM on July 23, 2013
Martin would visit Green on weekends, making the four-hour drive to the Orlando suburb of Sanford.
Did Zimmerman know Green? (also, not so fast on some of the stars joining the boycott - definitely a developing story and remains to be seen just what develops)
posted by cashman at 12:13 PM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 12:13 PM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
A Cop's Take on the Verdict
That was great. Thanks for sharing it.
He mentions something that I've mentioned before: Even the fight scene that played out in Zimmermans mind was written like an urban contemporary movie
I really wish someone with the power to be heard-- whether it was the cops, the prosecutors...hell, I'd settle for a "real" journalist -- had called Zimmerman on this bullshit. As I've said before, his story has Martin acting and speaking exactly like Young Black Thug #3 from central casting from beginning to end, and most people in a position to call him out on it let it slide without comment.
His supporters on StormFront could hardly have concocted a more craptastic story that hit so many notes in the "Black Males Are Dangerous and Unintelligent" song that that set sings every day, and yet most people who were in a position to call him out on it just shrugged and accepted it.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:17 PM on July 23, 2013 [10 favorites]
That was great. Thanks for sharing it.
He mentions something that I've mentioned before: Even the fight scene that played out in Zimmermans mind was written like an urban contemporary movie
I really wish someone with the power to be heard-- whether it was the cops, the prosecutors...hell, I'd settle for a "real" journalist -- had called Zimmerman on this bullshit. As I've said before, his story has Martin acting and speaking exactly like Young Black Thug #3 from central casting from beginning to end, and most people in a position to call him out on it let it slide without comment.
His supporters on StormFront could hardly have concocted a more craptastic story that hit so many notes in the "Black Males Are Dangerous and Unintelligent" song that that set sings every day, and yet most people who were in a position to call him out on it just shrugged and accepted it.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:17 PM on July 23, 2013 [10 favorites]
Where do we get all of our information? The Internets!
Did Zimmerman know Green?
The question is "WHY wouldn't the captain of the neighborhood watch NOT know Green?"
posted by mikelieman at 12:22 AM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Did Zimmerman know Green?
The question is "WHY wouldn't the captain of the neighborhood watch NOT know Green?"
posted by mikelieman at 12:22 AM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Conservatives Who Only Grant Blacks Group Status When It Disadvantages Them
For Hanson, the fact that blacks as a group commit more violent crimes, per capita, than whites justifies treating particular black people with heightened suspicion. Seeing them on the street, it is permissible to react based on their skin color, rather than treating them as distinct individuals. Suddenly, his ideal of colorblindness gives way to the logic of group statistics. Suddenly, Obama's alleged actions aren't the only thing stopping race from being "an irrelevant consideration" in the U.S. There's also the Hanson family advice to consider. Emphasis on tribe is suddenly common sense. It no longer matters that the term "African American" conflates people from staggeringly different backgrounds. Nor is the complexity of mixed race individuals cited as an insurmountable obstacle. A given black male is very unlikely to rob, rape, or murder anyone. But Hanson still warns his kid to be wary of all young blacks on the street. He knows the vast majority of blacks who perceive that wariness will be innocent.posted by zombieflanders at 7:03 AM on July 24, 2013 [13 favorites]
Yet he advises racial profiling anyway. Like the college admissions officer of his nightmares, he just finds race too useful as shorthand to refrain from giving "special treatment" based on skin color.
But only when the "special treatment" unfairly disadvantages blacks -- never when it advantages them.
Family Zimmerman Saved Won't Appear With Him In Public
posted by palomar at 2:40 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by palomar at 2:40 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
As the article makes clear, they aren't making a statement about their belief or lack thereof in his innocence in the Martin shooting, only that they don't need the crazy drama. Can anyone blame them? Why would you willingly put yourself into the spotlight? I sure wouldn't.
posted by Justinian at 2:44 PM on July 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:44 PM on July 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
Hell, I'd find it off-putting to even be asked to do a press conference in the first place. Especially since it doesn't seem like the other rescuer was being included in any of this.
posted by palomar at 2:49 PM on July 24, 2013
posted by palomar at 2:49 PM on July 24, 2013
Palomar didn't infer that. Just linked to a headline.
posted by futz at 2:50 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 2:50 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
My first thought on hearing, "Hey, George Zimmerman just saved a family from a car crash!" was, "Yeah, a white family."
posted by klangklangston at 2:51 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 2:51 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, I feel like saying he "saved" them is a bit much, from all accounts I've seen the family wasn't actually in mortal danger and emergency services were on the way. It's nice that someone helped them, but they'd have been out in just a few minutes anyway, and being helped by trained professionals that know whether or not to move someone who's just been in a car accident.
But hey, let's not get in the way of George Zimmerman stepping in and taking care of business that's best left to trained professionals. That is the man's wheelhouse, after all.
posted by palomar at 2:53 PM on July 24, 2013 [15 favorites]
But hey, let's not get in the way of George Zimmerman stepping in and taking care of business that's best left to trained professionals. That is the man's wheelhouse, after all.
posted by palomar at 2:53 PM on July 24, 2013 [15 favorites]
Palomar didn't infer that. Just linked to a headline.
People don't read links much of the time. So I wanted to clarify for the TL;DR people what the article was about.
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
People don't read links much of the time. So I wanted to clarify for the TL;DR people what the article was about.
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
palomar: "But hey, let's not get in the way of George Zimmerman stepping in and taking care of business that's best left to trained professionals. That is the man's wheelhouse, after all."
Yikes, be careful! I think under Florida law, the verbal beating you just gave him legally entitles him to kill you in self defense.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2013 [18 favorites]
Yikes, be careful! I think under Florida law, the verbal beating you just gave him legally entitles him to kill you in self defense.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2013 [18 favorites]
torticat: You might want to consider that your constant harping and interpretation of those "missing" four minutes is, not only uncharitable to Trayvon and charitable to Zimmerman, but is also a willful attempt to show that Trayvon must have had some hand in what ultimately happened.
It's been several days but I did want to respond to this. eunoia, I didn't mean to constantly harp on the missing minutes. I think my comments there were an example of that metafilter phenomenon when you say something that's not generally accepted (on mefi at least) and then end up "taking all comers" as the mods say.
If you look at my comments going back a year and a half ago, I think they'll back me up when I say I didn't start out feeling charitable toward Zimmerman. It was as I read up on the background, looked at the timeline, and watched the testimony in the trial (and I've listened to many hours of it, not while it was happening but over the last week) that I started to think that Zimmerman might actually have been telling the truth. (More or less. The "less" mainly having to do with how much of a beating he took.)
For what it's worth, I am skeptical of all conservative news sources and have avoided even looking at what they have to say about this case, except for clicking on some of the links in this thread.
When you listen to the witnesses' testimony and look at the evidence, it becomes apparent that many of the early assumptions about what happened were false. A lot of those assumptions have continued to be voiced throughout this thread by people who clearly have not actually listened to the trial. I haven't responded to them for the most part because it makes me sick, being in any way on the same side of an issue as the likes of stormfront.
But in spite of my feelings about that, I have come to believe the conventional wisdom on Zimmerman is wrong. My rethinking started when I accepted that it was Zimmerman who was yelling "help." And even upthread I suggested he may just have been yelling for people to come help him restrain the "thug," but after listening to the 911 calls and the people who heard him, I no longer think that. The call that caught those 40 seconds of yelling, plus the testimony of the closest witnesses, changed my mind.
Also, Zimmerman is a total fucking liar. About everything. I mean, he's not even good at it!
On the contrary, if he's lying, he's very good at it. His story stayed consistent on the fundamentals from the start, and was consistent with the testimony of witnesses and the 911 calls. Also he would have to be extremely devious to have claimed, repeatedly, moments after the shooting, "I kept yelling for help but nobody came," if he was in fact appropriating Trayvon Martin's yells for help. Or for that matter to pass a lie detector test the next day.
None of this changes my opinion that Zimmerman shouldn't have been carrying a gun. That is, I wish civilians did not have the right to carry concealed guns. I believe (going back to the part I quoted from you at the top of this) that the evidence does show that Martin had a hand in what happened. But whatever he might have done, it should not have cost him his life, and my heart breaks for the grief of his family.
posted by torticat at 5:46 AM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
It's been several days but I did want to respond to this. eunoia, I didn't mean to constantly harp on the missing minutes. I think my comments there were an example of that metafilter phenomenon when you say something that's not generally accepted (on mefi at least) and then end up "taking all comers" as the mods say.
If you look at my comments going back a year and a half ago, I think they'll back me up when I say I didn't start out feeling charitable toward Zimmerman. It was as I read up on the background, looked at the timeline, and watched the testimony in the trial (and I've listened to many hours of it, not while it was happening but over the last week) that I started to think that Zimmerman might actually have been telling the truth. (More or less. The "less" mainly having to do with how much of a beating he took.)
For what it's worth, I am skeptical of all conservative news sources and have avoided even looking at what they have to say about this case, except for clicking on some of the links in this thread.
When you listen to the witnesses' testimony and look at the evidence, it becomes apparent that many of the early assumptions about what happened were false. A lot of those assumptions have continued to be voiced throughout this thread by people who clearly have not actually listened to the trial. I haven't responded to them for the most part because it makes me sick, being in any way on the same side of an issue as the likes of stormfront.
But in spite of my feelings about that, I have come to believe the conventional wisdom on Zimmerman is wrong. My rethinking started when I accepted that it was Zimmerman who was yelling "help." And even upthread I suggested he may just have been yelling for people to come help him restrain the "thug," but after listening to the 911 calls and the people who heard him, I no longer think that. The call that caught those 40 seconds of yelling, plus the testimony of the closest witnesses, changed my mind.
Also, Zimmerman is a total fucking liar. About everything. I mean, he's not even good at it!
On the contrary, if he's lying, he's very good at it. His story stayed consistent on the fundamentals from the start, and was consistent with the testimony of witnesses and the 911 calls. Also he would have to be extremely devious to have claimed, repeatedly, moments after the shooting, "I kept yelling for help but nobody came," if he was in fact appropriating Trayvon Martin's yells for help. Or for that matter to pass a lie detector test the next day.
None of this changes my opinion that Zimmerman shouldn't have been carrying a gun. That is, I wish civilians did not have the right to carry concealed guns. I believe (going back to the part I quoted from you at the top of this) that the evidence does show that Martin had a hand in what happened. But whatever he might have done, it should not have cost him his life, and my heart breaks for the grief of his family.
posted by torticat at 5:46 AM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Playgrounds. PLAYGROUNDS.
I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but won't somebody think of the children?
posted by jaduncan at 9:36 AM on July 25, 2013
I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but won't somebody think of the children?
posted by jaduncan at 9:36 AM on July 25, 2013
Playgrounds. PLAYGROUNDS.
What is the problem with the playgrounds? If they're going to do something awful with the gun at the playground, then the crime they commit with the gun will be enough without having to add "possessing it at a playground" to the charges. And if they're not going to do something awful, what's the problem with parents being armed there?
posted by corb at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2013
What is the problem with the playgrounds? If they're going to do something awful with the gun at the playground, then the crime they commit with the gun will be enough without having to add "possessing it at a playground" to the charges. And if they're not going to do something awful, what's the problem with parents being armed there?
posted by corb at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2013
Who's to say the only people armed at a playground are parents? Plenty of parks here in my city have a playground area that is part of a larger park, and lots of people who aren't parents hang out at parks. This continued assumption that people with concealed carry permits are always responsible and well-trained and would never, say, accidentally shoot someone - like a child - is beyond puzzling to me.
posted by rtha at 9:54 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:54 AM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
There's only been a dozen instances of 4 and 5 year olds getting killed by guns this year.
posted by empath at 9:56 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by empath at 9:56 AM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
What is the problem with the playgrounds? If they're going to do something awful with the gun at the playground, then the crime they commit with the gun will be enough without having to add "possessing it at a playground" to the charges. And if they're not going to do something awful, what's the problem with parents being armed there?
"They" do not need to deliberately "do something" for accidents or misunderstandings to be an issue.
posted by kagredon at 9:57 AM on July 25, 2013
"They" do not need to deliberately "do something" for accidents or misunderstandings to be an issue.
posted by kagredon at 9:57 AM on July 25, 2013
What is the problem with the playgrounds? If they're going to do something awful with the gun at the playground, then the crime they commit with the gun will be enough without having to add "possessing it at a playground" to the charges. And if they're not going to do something awful, what's the problem with parents being armed there?
Dead kids. I don't like kids getting shot and killed. Some think that their right to carry around a lethal weapon trumps the right of kids to not be killed, but I disagree.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:56 AM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Dead kids. I don't like kids getting shot and killed. Some think that their right to carry around a lethal weapon trumps the right of kids to not be killed, but I disagree.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:56 AM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
good way to drop a bomb in the conversation, though. does that help you in some areas of your life, somehow?
posted by angrycat at 10:59 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 10:59 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
This continued assumption that people with concealed carry permits are always responsible and well-trained and would never, say, accidentally shoot someone - like a child - is beyond puzzling to me.
You can be relatively responsible and still have issues. I've seen a serving soldier negligent discharge (unintentionally shoot their weapon) into their own leg. The only thing he did wrong was to have his weapon holstered and with one in the chamber on too hot a day, meaning that when the bullet heated up enough that it NDed without the hammer striking it things got excitingly painful for him.
So, to corb, because ND ricochets are a thing.
PS: Banging the weapon hard into something may also cause an ND. Falling off a climbing frame or swing could cause an ND. Just saying.
posted by jaduncan at 11:51 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
You can be relatively responsible and still have issues. I've seen a serving soldier negligent discharge (unintentionally shoot their weapon) into their own leg. The only thing he did wrong was to have his weapon holstered and with one in the chamber on too hot a day, meaning that when the bullet heated up enough that it NDed without the hammer striking it things got excitingly painful for him.
So, to corb, because ND ricochets are a thing.
PS: Banging the weapon hard into something may also cause an ND. Falling off a climbing frame or swing could cause an ND. Just saying.
posted by jaduncan at 11:51 AM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Oh, and it's not impossible that a stupid/immature kid tries to steal/play with the weapon, at which point all bets are off.
posted by jaduncan at 11:52 AM on July 25, 2013
posted by jaduncan at 11:52 AM on July 25, 2013
And if they're not going to do something awful, what's the problem with parents being armed there?
People do all sorts of things that could be classified as "awful" that do no warrant whipping out a gun and/or shooting someone.
Trayvon wasn't doing, but that didn't stop someone from initializing an encounter that wound up getting him killed.
And frankly, considering how emotional some parents can react, they're the last people who should be armed at a playground.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:16 PM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
People do all sorts of things that could be classified as "awful" that do no warrant whipping out a gun and/or shooting someone.
Trayvon wasn't doing, but that didn't stop someone from initializing an encounter that wound up getting him killed.
And frankly, considering how emotional some parents can react, they're the last people who should be armed at a playground.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:16 PM on July 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
Man, remember when the Second Amendment said that you had a right to bear arms instead of an obligation to do so? Good times.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:24 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:24 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
empath: "There's only been a dozen instances of 4 and 5 year olds getting killed by guns this year."
As few as that?
posted by Deathalicious at 12:28 PM on July 25, 2013
As few as that?
posted by Deathalicious at 12:28 PM on July 25, 2013
Children aged 5-14 in the U.S., according to 2003 statistics, are more than 13 times more likely than children in other high-income populous countries to be murdered with a gun, nearly 8 times more likely to die of gun-related suicide, and 10 times more likely to be the victim of an unintentional shooting.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:30 PM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:30 PM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on July 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
but..... Zimmerman admitted he killed Martin intentionally
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:52 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
but..... Zimmerman admitted he killed Martin intentionally
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:52 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."
As someone said upthread, this is the definition of a show trial
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:53 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
As someone said upthread, this is the definition of a show trial
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:53 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Of course according to the Slate gun death tracker there have been 130 children killed by guns since Newton. Latest being a 3 year old and a four year old (in separate incidents) on Sunday.
posted by shothotbot at 1:09 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by shothotbot at 1:09 PM on July 25, 2013
You can bring your gun (but not your automobile) to a bar, get wasted, go to a playground, and if you do something that makes someone angry at you (say, be belligerently drunk towards their child) until their parenting instinct makes them take drastic action, shoot them, and as long as you state you thought your life was in danger claim Stand Your Ground.
Freedom!
posted by zombieflanders at 1:18 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Freedom!
posted by zombieflanders at 1:18 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'
I would make a terrible juror, as I would probably would not have budged from manslaughter.
The article is so odd. She says she fought until the end, but they had a verdict in 2 days. so..ok then? Of course it was hard and tedious and draining, but that's nothing like the
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:19 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would make a terrible juror, as I would probably would not have budged from manslaughter.
The article is so odd. She says she fought until the end, but they had a verdict in 2 days. so..ok then? Of course it was hard and tedious and draining, but that's nothing like the
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:19 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Could jury nullification have applied in this Zimmerman trial? The Wikipedia article reads as though it could been applied.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:23 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:23 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman admitted he killed Martin intentionally
He admitted he shot him, but not that he killed him intentionally.
Still, that juror's understanding of the law seems wrong-headed. I mean under some circumstances you COULD kill someone intentionally and have it still be self defense. It's not so much about the intent to kill as it is about whether you were legitimately acting in self defense, isn't that right?
The article is so odd.
I agree. This is a weird bit too:
"When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, 'I don't think so.'" ...???
But I haven't listened to it in context yet.
posted by torticat at 1:39 PM on July 25, 2013
He admitted he shot him, but not that he killed him intentionally.
Still, that juror's understanding of the law seems wrong-headed. I mean under some circumstances you COULD kill someone intentionally and have it still be self defense. It's not so much about the intent to kill as it is about whether you were legitimately acting in self defense, isn't that right?
The article is so odd.
I agree. This is a weird bit too:
"When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, 'I don't think so.'" ...???
But I haven't listened to it in context yet.
posted by torticat at 1:39 PM on July 25, 2013
"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it,"
This is the booklet they SHOULD have read.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:16 PM on July 25, 2013
This is the booklet they SHOULD have read.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:16 PM on July 25, 2013
As someone said upthread, this is the definition of a show trial
What the? No, a show trial is a trial in which the defendant's guilt is already determined and is about retribution rather than justice. Finding someone "not guilty" is not a show trial.
There really is an awful lot of "Sentence first - verdict afterwards" going on here. You may not like the self defense laws. I may not like them. But acting like a jury should ignore the law to convict someone is dangerous and wrong.
Could jury nullification have applied in this Zimmerman trial?
As stated in the very first sentences of that article, nullification involves the jury ignoring the law because they want to acquit. Which is the opposite of what happened here: the jury (at least some of them) wanted to come back with some form of a guilty verdict but felt they could not ignore the law.
Do you guys really think the jury should have convicted a guy, as scummy as he might be and as morally responsible as he may be, despite the state failing to prove him guilty of a crime? Because that's dangerous and far worse than one scumbag walking free.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
What the? No, a show trial is a trial in which the defendant's guilt is already determined and is about retribution rather than justice. Finding someone "not guilty" is not a show trial.
There really is an awful lot of "Sentence first - verdict afterwards" going on here. You may not like the self defense laws. I may not like them. But acting like a jury should ignore the law to convict someone is dangerous and wrong.
Could jury nullification have applied in this Zimmerman trial?
As stated in the very first sentences of that article, nullification involves the jury ignoring the law because they want to acquit. Which is the opposite of what happened here: the jury (at least some of them) wanted to come back with some form of a guilty verdict but felt they could not ignore the law.
Do you guys really think the jury should have convicted a guy, as scummy as he might be and as morally responsible as he may be, despite the state failing to prove him guilty of a crime? Because that's dangerous and far worse than one scumbag walking free.
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Still, that juror's understanding of the law seems wrong-headed. I mean under some circumstances you COULD kill someone intentionally and have it still be self defense. It's not so much about the intent to kill as it is about whether you were legitimately acting in self defense, isn't that right?
Absolutely. A situation where you are in reasonable fear of your life gives you the right to lethal self-defense, and lethal self-defense means exactly the right to intentionally kill to protect yourself.
posted by jaduncan at 2:26 PM on July 25, 2013
Absolutely. A situation where you are in reasonable fear of your life gives you the right to lethal self-defense, and lethal self-defense means exactly the right to intentionally kill to protect yourself.
posted by jaduncan at 2:26 PM on July 25, 2013
Because that's dangerous and far worse than one scumbag walking free.
It isn't just one. This happens again, and again, and again, and again. The solution may be to change the laws because I think most agree that this situation is wrong and should not be left to happen again. But it isn't an isolated thing.
If there were OJ case after OJ case, you bet your butt there would be some changes in the law so fast it would make your head spin.
What were the instructions for manslaughter? When I saw them, I thought that applied. I remember there being two parts to it, but then there were exceptions.
posted by cashman at 2:45 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
It isn't just one. This happens again, and again, and again, and again. The solution may be to change the laws because I think most agree that this situation is wrong and should not be left to happen again. But it isn't an isolated thing.
If there were OJ case after OJ case, you bet your butt there would be some changes in the law so fast it would make your head spin.
What were the instructions for manslaughter? When I saw them, I thought that applied. I remember there being two parts to it, but then there were exceptions.
posted by cashman at 2:45 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."I guess she hasn't heard that it was all part of God's plan.
posted by homunculus at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2013
This happens again, and again, and again, and again.
What happens again, and again, and again? I'm not being snide; I'm not sure to which part of the verdict or societal implications you're referring.
posted by Justinian at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2013
What happens again, and again, and again? I'm not being snide; I'm not sure to which part of the verdict or societal implications you're referring.
posted by Justinian at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2013
A scumbag (or bags) walking free after killing a black guy out of "fear".
posted by cashman at 3:07 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by cashman at 3:07 PM on July 25, 2013
Probably. As you say the solution is changes to the law, not convicting people who haven't been proven to have broken the law.
posted by Justinian at 3:10 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:10 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
You can bring your gun (but not your automobile) to a bar, get wasted, go to a playground, and if you do something that makes someone angry at you (say, be belligerently drunk towards their child) until their parenting instinct makes them take drastic action, shoot them, and as long as you state you thought your life was in danger claim Stand Your Ground.
As much as i agree this law is goddamn bonkers, i'm almost positive that(at least in my state) you are not allowed to have your CW on you, nor can you lawfully use it if you're intoxicated.
how this will play out i have no idea, but that's at least theoretically supposed to be like.. a thing.
What the? No, a show trial is a trial in which the defendant's guilt is already determined and is about retribution rather than justice. Finding someone "not guilty" is not a show trial.
I understand what you're saying entirely, but i disagree. Preloading to get any desired result makes it a "show trial". Are you denying that the KKK members walking on trials in the 50s and so on were not show trials?
Do you guys really think the jury should have convicted a guy, as scummy as he might be and as morally responsible as he may be, despite the state failing to prove him guilty of a crime? Because that's dangerous and far worse than one scumbag walking free.
Absolutely not. I am 100% with you on this. I do, however think that the state has a duty to prove that the defendant was guilty to the absolute maximum of their capability with the available evidence and possible interpretations of applicable law, and that just didn't happen here.
I'm not even a legal professional and this felt like "Fisher Price My First Courtroom!™" to me.
Just because he wasn't railroaded in to a guilty verdict doesn't mean that they didn't slow walk him in to a not guilty.
It's the equivalent of a boxer being paid off by the mob to "go down in the 4th". That's what I, and as far as i can tell several other people in here are saying.
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
As much as i agree this law is goddamn bonkers, i'm almost positive that(at least in my state) you are not allowed to have your CW on you, nor can you lawfully use it if you're intoxicated.
how this will play out i have no idea, but that's at least theoretically supposed to be like.. a thing.
What the? No, a show trial is a trial in which the defendant's guilt is already determined and is about retribution rather than justice. Finding someone "not guilty" is not a show trial.
I understand what you're saying entirely, but i disagree. Preloading to get any desired result makes it a "show trial". Are you denying that the KKK members walking on trials in the 50s and so on were not show trials?
Do you guys really think the jury should have convicted a guy, as scummy as he might be and as morally responsible as he may be, despite the state failing to prove him guilty of a crime? Because that's dangerous and far worse than one scumbag walking free.
Absolutely not. I am 100% with you on this. I do, however think that the state has a duty to prove that the defendant was guilty to the absolute maximum of their capability with the available evidence and possible interpretations of applicable law, and that just didn't happen here.
I'm not even a legal professional and this felt like "Fisher Price My First Courtroom!™" to me.
Just because he wasn't railroaded in to a guilty verdict doesn't mean that they didn't slow walk him in to a not guilty.
It's the equivalent of a boxer being paid off by the mob to "go down in the 4th". That's what I, and as far as i can tell several other people in here are saying.
posted by emptythought at 3:39 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I do want to be clear though, that if this leads to a bunch of internet liberals crying that juries should convict based on feeling even without good evidence then i will fucking cry.
That's the exact kind of shit that got kids like Martin put underground in "ye olde days" for "raping white girls" and stuff.
I really don't think that's what anyone is saying here though Justinian.
posted by emptythought at 3:40 PM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
That's the exact kind of shit that got kids like Martin put underground in "ye olde days" for "raping white girls" and stuff.
I really don't think that's what anyone is saying here though Justinian.
posted by emptythought at 3:40 PM on July 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think the idea that the prosecution was completely inept is overstated. I think they made some mistakes but I'm not sure it would have mattered. My educated guess is that the best they could have hoped for is a hung jury. Which, sure, would have been better from many people's point of view than a straight not-guilty but it still leaves Zimmerman free and the state unlikely to be able to do better in another trial.
For example one thing that hasn't really been mentioned much is that the state is being sanctioned for, essentially, playing dirty. They cheated in an effort to get a conviction. It's hard to argue they threw the case when they were playing fast and loose with the rules to try to throw the guy in jail.
posted by Justinian at 3:48 PM on July 25, 2013
For example one thing that hasn't really been mentioned much is that the state is being sanctioned for, essentially, playing dirty. They cheated in an effort to get a conviction. It's hard to argue they threw the case when they were playing fast and loose with the rules to try to throw the guy in jail.
posted by Justinian at 3:48 PM on July 25, 2013
Gov. Scott rejects civil rights organization request for Angela Corey to be removed from murder trial of Michael Dunn charged in the killing of Jordan Davis.
posted by paulsc at 4:01 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by paulsc at 4:01 PM on July 25, 2013
I love how the new juror is all like "the evidence showed Zimmerman was guilty of killing Trayvon Martin." Well no shit, lady. Was that even a question? This new juror doesn't seem any more on the ball than the other one even if she isn't a racist like that one may have been.
posted by Justinian at 4:08 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by Justinian at 4:08 PM on July 25, 2013
As stated in the very first sentences of that article, nullification involves the jury ignoring the law because they want to acquit. Which is the opposite of what happened here: the jury (at least some of them) wanted to come back with some form of a guilty verdict but felt they could not ignore the law.
Check out the third sentence in that article:
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Check out the third sentence in that article:
A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).Hence my question about whether jury nullification could have been applied in the Zimmerman trial.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on July 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Jury nullification could have applied to the Zimmerman trial. It usually works the other way but as the word suggests, jury nullification nullifies the law, full stop. There is the possibility that a judge who thinks a jury returns a wrongful conviction could strike the verdict, but it's exceedingly rare for jury verdicts to be changed for any reason, and that would still be a mistrial leaving the possibility for re-prosecution. Such a jury nullification conviction could also have been appealed, and the rules for that are all over the place.
posted by localroger at 8:14 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by localroger at 8:14 PM on July 25, 2013
Wow, I had no idea Jury Nullification existed, but it does seem to fit. Thanks for posting that Brandon.
posted by cashman at 9:08 PM on July 25, 2013
posted by cashman at 9:08 PM on July 25, 2013
They go out of their way REALLY HARD to exclude anyone who even heard the two words "Jury" and "Nullification" used in the same paragraph during voir-dire. Apparently, current legal theory is that the Jury doesn't get to decide the law at all. Just the facts.
Of course, when you give the Jurors a little booklet telling THEM what the law is, and excluding salient points and constructed in such a way to return a predicted verdict, that's very different than what's been suggested. I don't think the 'rule of law' needs to be subverted to render justice upon George Zimmerman. Just giving the jurors the option to actually convict him would suffice for me.
I used "Show Trial" not in the "soviet" context, but in the "They decided Zimmerman wasn't going to be found guilty, so they gave their best performance, then handed the jury instructions explicitly designed to return a not-guilty verdict.
It was one heck of a show.
posted by mikelieman at 9:50 PM on July 25, 2013
Of course, when you give the Jurors a little booklet telling THEM what the law is, and excluding salient points and constructed in such a way to return a predicted verdict, that's very different than what's been suggested. I don't think the 'rule of law' needs to be subverted to render justice upon George Zimmerman. Just giving the jurors the option to actually convict him would suffice for me.
I used "Show Trial" not in the "soviet" context, but in the "They decided Zimmerman wasn't going to be found guilty, so they gave their best performance, then handed the jury instructions explicitly designed to return a not-guilty verdict.
It was one heck of a show.
posted by mikelieman at 9:50 PM on July 25, 2013
I do, however think that the state has a duty to prove that the defendant was guilty to the absolute maximum of their capability with the available evidence and possible interpretations of applicable law, and that just didn't happen here.
emptythought, can you be specific about the ways you felt the state fell short? I thought the prosecutor was sort of lacking in eloquence, but I never felt like yelling at him "Why are you not bringing up xyz?!?" I think they actually might have done the best they could with the "available evidence and possible interpretations of the law." But I'm curious to know what you think could/should have been done differently or better.
Also, what would have been the state's interest in throwing the match, if the evidence could have supported a guilty verdict? Public opinion was certainly on the side of finding Zimmerman guilty of something.
It didn't help, by the way, that they were up against a truly masterful defense team. The defense closing was a work of art.
posted by torticat at 10:44 PM on July 25, 2013
emptythought, can you be specific about the ways you felt the state fell short? I thought the prosecutor was sort of lacking in eloquence, but I never felt like yelling at him "Why are you not bringing up xyz?!?" I think they actually might have done the best they could with the "available evidence and possible interpretations of the law." But I'm curious to know what you think could/should have been done differently or better.
Also, what would have been the state's interest in throwing the match, if the evidence could have supported a guilty verdict? Public opinion was certainly on the side of finding Zimmerman guilty of something.
It didn't help, by the way, that they were up against a truly masterful defense team. The defense closing was a work of art.
posted by torticat at 10:44 PM on July 25, 2013
Also, what would have been the state's interest in throwing the match
The state's interest is simple. No-one gives a shit about dead black kids. No-one gave a shit about Zimmerman killing Martin until the Internet got involved. And although they were forced to have a trial eventually, due to the novelty of the internet shitstorm and the streisand effect, they went out of their way crafting the jury instructions to ensure they got the result which fits their narrative.
I saw this move myself first used to get 4 cops off of killing Amadou Diallo in NYC.
posted by mikelieman at 11:10 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
The state's interest is simple. No-one gives a shit about dead black kids. No-one gave a shit about Zimmerman killing Martin until the Internet got involved. And although they were forced to have a trial eventually, due to the novelty of the internet shitstorm and the streisand effect, they went out of their way crafting the jury instructions to ensure they got the result which fits their narrative.
I saw this move myself first used to get 4 cops off of killing Amadou Diallo in NYC.
posted by mikelieman at 11:10 PM on July 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
That's why everyone who does give a shit about dead black kids needs to stay in the face all of the responsible governmental entities/individuals like hornets, so they can see it won't be the move that will make their lives easier.
posted by cairdeas at 12:00 AM on July 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 12:00 AM on July 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
Also, what would have been the state's interest in throwing the match, if the evidence could have supported a guilty verdict? Public opinion was certainly on the side of finding Zimmerman guilty of something.
Shoulda been a big ass * in there, because public opinion was for finding him guilty of something on here. Everywhere you and me were reading people were rallying for it. Everyone on tumblr was rallying for it.
The SJ minded or at least left leaning internet is not in any way related to the on-the-ground view in a relatively small town in florida, or even in florida in general. A state that passed those ridiculous voting laws(which is seriously, some new jim crow shit) is probably pretty damn full of people who are very much preloaded to buy pretty much the flimsiest story Zimmerman gives just because they don't want black kids in their neighborhoods, and totally understand where he's coming from with his racist ass shit.
They're essentially the cool dad who was in the room for the "kid who was playing ball and the lamp broke" moment i've referenced before.
They all know "mom" is going to be mad, which is in this case the general public outcry from places that aren't their town and people who don't share their mindset. So what do they do? They circle the wagons and back Zimmermans shit up. But it's more than that analogy can hold. They aren't just backing him up, they're backing eachother up in a very "blue wall of silence" type of way not just because they believe all the "crazy negro went crazy" type of "logic", but also because it's a "gold ol boys got eachothers back" kinda thing.
The jury instructions pretty much prove this point. It's structured so that the people who agree with it can "do their job" by following the letter of it, and the people who don't entirely still either get to go or are pushed in to "well, the letter of it says this".
And it's when you look at it that way that you start to see the fucked up scope of this.
posted by emptythought at 12:29 AM on July 26, 2013
Shoulda been a big ass * in there, because public opinion was for finding him guilty of something on here. Everywhere you and me were reading people were rallying for it. Everyone on tumblr was rallying for it.
The SJ minded or at least left leaning internet is not in any way related to the on-the-ground view in a relatively small town in florida, or even in florida in general. A state that passed those ridiculous voting laws(which is seriously, some new jim crow shit) is probably pretty damn full of people who are very much preloaded to buy pretty much the flimsiest story Zimmerman gives just because they don't want black kids in their neighborhoods, and totally understand where he's coming from with his racist ass shit.
They're essentially the cool dad who was in the room for the "kid who was playing ball and the lamp broke" moment i've referenced before.
They all know "mom" is going to be mad, which is in this case the general public outcry from places that aren't their town and people who don't share their mindset. So what do they do? They circle the wagons and back Zimmermans shit up. But it's more than that analogy can hold. They aren't just backing him up, they're backing eachother up in a very "blue wall of silence" type of way not just because they believe all the "crazy negro went crazy" type of "logic", but also because it's a "gold ol boys got eachothers back" kinda thing.
The jury instructions pretty much prove this point. It's structured so that the people who agree with it can "do their job" by following the letter of it, and the people who don't entirely still either get to go or are pushed in to "well, the letter of it says this".
And it's when you look at it that way that you start to see the fucked up scope of this.
posted by emptythought at 12:29 AM on July 26, 2013
The jury instructions pretty much prove this point. It's structured so that the people who agree with it can "do their job" by following the letter of it, and the people who don't entirely still either get to go or are pushed in to "well, the letter of it says this".
Another way to say this, except less sinister, is "the jury instructions try to get people to understand and follow the law."
posted by Justinian at 1:20 AM on July 26, 2013
Another way to say this, except less sinister, is "the jury instructions try to get people to understand and follow the law."
posted by Justinian at 1:20 AM on July 26, 2013
And it's when you look at it that way that you start to see the fucked up scope of this.
Well, that all seems like a very cynical view of things, but I suppose it could be possible.
The jury instructions pretty much prove this point. It's structured so that the people who agree with it can "do their job" by following the letter of it, and the people who don't entirely still either get to go or are pushed in to "well, the letter of it says this".
The jury instructions are prepared by the judge, right? On the basis of the law? So that would be down to Judge Nelson. And I don't think she can be accused of favoring the defense. She apparently tried to split the baby in some instances (such as the "racial profiling" vs "profiling" issue), but in general I wouldn't say her rulings indicated a "circling the wagons" mentality that benefited the defense. See here for some examples of her run-ins with Don West.
(I like Judge Nelson and think she did an amazing job of moving things along and keeping people on track.)
They all know "mom" is going to be mad, which is in this case the general public outcry from places that aren't their town and people who don't share their mindset. So what do they do? They circle the wagons
Are you talking about de la Rionda? You don't think he wanted a conviction in this case? He's a state attorney, not a buddy of the Sanford cops.
posted by torticat at 1:26 AM on July 26, 2013
Well, that all seems like a very cynical view of things, but I suppose it could be possible.
The jury instructions pretty much prove this point. It's structured so that the people who agree with it can "do their job" by following the letter of it, and the people who don't entirely still either get to go or are pushed in to "well, the letter of it says this".
The jury instructions are prepared by the judge, right? On the basis of the law? So that would be down to Judge Nelson. And I don't think she can be accused of favoring the defense. She apparently tried to split the baby in some instances (such as the "racial profiling" vs "profiling" issue), but in general I wouldn't say her rulings indicated a "circling the wagons" mentality that benefited the defense. See here for some examples of her run-ins with Don West.
(I like Judge Nelson and think she did an amazing job of moving things along and keeping people on track.)
They all know "mom" is going to be mad, which is in this case the general public outcry from places that aren't their town and people who don't share their mindset. So what do they do? They circle the wagons
Are you talking about de la Rionda? You don't think he wanted a conviction in this case? He's a state attorney, not a buddy of the Sanford cops.
posted by torticat at 1:26 AM on July 26, 2013
Jury instructions are typically crafted by the judge with the participation of the attorneys for both the prosecution and the defence. There are no surprises for anyone except possibly jury members in them.
posted by scottymac at 1:59 AM on July 26, 2013
posted by scottymac at 1:59 AM on July 26, 2013
I was surprised that in order to convict on manslaughter there needed to be an overt act, as opposed to culpable negligence.
posted by mikelieman at 6:17 AM on July 26, 2013
posted by mikelieman at 6:17 AM on July 26, 2013
I was surprised that in order to convict on manslaughter there needed to be an overt act
Can you post the full piece that describes the things that must be fulfilled, if you have it handy?
posted by cashman at 6:23 AM on July 26, 2013
Can you post the full piece that describes the things that must be fulfilled, if you have it handy?
posted by cashman at 6:23 AM on July 26, 2013
782.07 (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2013
posted by Justinian at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2013
FTFJI:
posted by mikelieman at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2013
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elementsThis appears to conflict with the citation of 782.07(1).
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
posted by mikelieman at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2013
Manslaughter is precluded by self-defense. It was included in the lessor charges. IOW self-defense is lawful justification of homicide.
posted by snaparapans at 11:36 AM on July 26, 2013
posted by snaparapans at 11:36 AM on July 26, 2013
Isn't any "reasonable" possibility that a homicide was committed in self defense a justification of homicide in Florida? (at least of black teenagers, anyway).
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:10 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:10 PM on July 26, 2013
If a jury thinks there is a reasonable possibility that a homicide was committed in self defense that is likely a justification of homicide almost anywhere.
posted by Justinian at 12:12 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by Justinian at 12:12 PM on July 26, 2013
And manslaughter as well? And you think that is a good thing?
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:14 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:14 PM on July 26, 2013
I've said over and over and over in these threads that the burden of proof issues seem problematic in self defense cases. I do recognize that it is very difficult to construct self defense laws that do not allow some murderers to get away with it by claiming self defense.
posted by Justinian at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
"March for Dignity" Seeks Release of Marissa Alexander & Resignation of Prosecutor Angela Corey
posted by homunculus at 12:20 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by homunculus at 12:20 PM on July 26, 2013
mikelieman: The sentence after the bit you quoted in FTFJI is
posted by Justinian at 12:25 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:You left this part out.
posted by Justinian at 12:25 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't see how 'cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act' squares with the text of the law, specifically 'culpable negligence', which was what Zimmerman was actually guilty of.
posted by mikelieman at 2:11 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by mikelieman at 2:11 PM on July 26, 2013
Mike: I'm fairly certain that hinges on the difference between "culpable negligence" and "mere negligence". The instructions are saying that mere negligence isn't enough, any negligence would have to be culpable.
But I think it's irrelevant. If most of the jury bought the self defense line nothing else in these instructions matter one wit. The best the prosecution could hope for at that point appears to be a 5-1 for acquittal hung jury.
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on July 26, 2013
But I think it's irrelevant. If most of the jury bought the self defense line nothing else in these instructions matter one wit. The best the prosecution could hope for at that point appears to be a 5-1 for acquittal hung jury.
posted by Justinian at 2:32 PM on July 26, 2013
Gun Advocacy Group Sends Zimmerman $12,000 To Buy Guns
posted by homunculus at 2:45 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by homunculus at 2:45 PM on July 26, 2013
Unbelievable, what assholes. I hope he refuses the money.
posted by torticat at 3:59 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by torticat at 3:59 PM on July 26, 2013
Well, his hobbies are stalking and murder, so it would seem unlikely.
posted by Artw at 4:16 PM on July 26, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:16 PM on July 26, 2013 [10 favorites]
I love how the new juror is all like "the evidence showed Zimmerman was guilty of killing Trayvon Martin." Well no shit, lady. Was that even a question?
She seems a little muddled. She also said--when Robin Roberts asked her why the jury asked for further instruction on manslaughter:
"What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter, in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home he said, 'I'm going to go kill Trayvon Martin.'"
...I mean that's just a ridiculously wrongheaded description of manslaughter.
But I haven't been able to find the full interview. The longest segments I can find are here, from Nightline. I can't find the part where she said she didn't think the case should have gone to trial.
William Saletan suggests ABC's editing was a bit deceptive in places. I noticed this too while clicking around and listening to different versions of what they aired. (I understand some people here aren't fond of Saletan; take it fwiw.)
posted by torticat at 4:21 PM on July 26, 2013
She seems a little muddled. She also said--when Robin Roberts asked her why the jury asked for further instruction on manslaughter:
"What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter, in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home he said, 'I'm going to go kill Trayvon Martin.'"
...I mean that's just a ridiculously wrongheaded description of manslaughter.
But I haven't been able to find the full interview. The longest segments I can find are here, from Nightline. I can't find the part where she said she didn't think the case should have gone to trial.
William Saletan suggests ABC's editing was a bit deceptive in places. I noticed this too while clicking around and listening to different versions of what they aired. (I understand some people here aren't fond of Saletan; take it fwiw.)
posted by torticat at 4:21 PM on July 26, 2013
Yup. This juror seemed no more coherent or on the ball than the other juror. It's depressing. These are the people who decide your fate if you get put on trial. I wouldn't trust them to pick up the right ingredients for my rice pilaf.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on July 26, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on July 26, 2013 [6 favorites]
It really is depressing. It makes you wonder about the selection process. It would be great to shine light on how the jurors are agreed upon. I haven't seen this most recent juror's statements, but I know B37 was ridiculously clueless. But if that's what they are going for with jury selection, then no surprise.
My possibly wrong understanding is that for any high profile case, they try to get people who haven't paid attention. Who aren't aware of the case or who don't pay attention to television and/or media. Wasn't one juror boastful of that? That's a problem to me. I get that (in my scenario, if that's what they're doing) you want to go for the blank slate people, but that has its own issues to unpack in there. I don't think that because someone has been exposed to information about the case and thoughts about it, that the person should necessarily be excluded from what the job of a juror is, which is to evaluate things and come to a decision based on those things.
posted by cashman at 7:32 PM on July 26, 2013
My possibly wrong understanding is that for any high profile case, they try to get people who haven't paid attention. Who aren't aware of the case or who don't pay attention to television and/or media. Wasn't one juror boastful of that? That's a problem to me. I get that (in my scenario, if that's what they're doing) you want to go for the blank slate people, but that has its own issues to unpack in there. I don't think that because someone has been exposed to information about the case and thoughts about it, that the person should necessarily be excluded from what the job of a juror is, which is to evaluate things and come to a decision based on those things.
posted by cashman at 7:32 PM on July 26, 2013
AAU team dons 'I AM TRAYVON' shirts at tournament in Las Vegas
posted by cashman at 7:42 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by cashman at 7:42 PM on July 26, 2013
"Depraved mind regardless of human life" is the pertinent phrase to focus on. This is why Marissa Alexander was convicted (imho) and Zimmerman was not.
posted by maggieb at 9:31 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by maggieb at 9:31 PM on July 26, 2013
Proving "depraved mind" was the only way the prosecution could defeat self defense. They tried but they failed.
posted by maggieb at 9:41 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by maggieb at 9:41 PM on July 26, 2013
A jury of your peers is kind of useless if your peers are morons.
Or, rather, it can be to your great advantage to have morons as your jury.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Or, rather, it can be to your great advantage to have morons as your jury.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
fff, yes. But I can't think of anything better. We do have appeals.
posted by maggieb at 10:00 PM on July 26, 2013
posted by maggieb at 10:00 PM on July 26, 2013
A jury of your peers is kind of useless if your peers are morons.
B37 wasn't as bad as all that. She was speaking from the perspective of having been immersed in the trial in a way that the CNN viewing audience obviously hadn't been (and neither had Anderson Cooper). Like I said up above, her comments on "those people" (and she never used those words) directly reflected an exchange in the trial between Rachel Jeantel and the lawyers, and she accepted what Jeantel said there.
She's been faulted for saying race didn't enter into the discussion, but B29 said the same thing. It appears they actually didn't think racial profiling was a significant driver in what happened, but that Zimmerman's suspicions were based on the recent history of break-ins in the neighborhood. Either way, it probably didn't have bearing on the narrow question they had to decide, i.e., did Zimmerman ultimately fire his gun in self defense.
She was criticized upthread for mixing up her witnesses, but in that little exchange it was actually Anderson Cooper who didn't recognize which witness she was talking about--the medic in Vietnam who supposedly had experience in identifying the owners of voices yelling in stress.
Also, the question and answer the judge instructed the jury to ignore--the one where Serino said he believed Zimmerman had been telling the truth--it was actually only one Q&A that was disallowed, out of like at least 30 minutes of testimony that had conveyed exactly the same idea. The juror would have arrived at the conclusion she stated in the interview even if that answer had never been given at all. And Anderson Cooper didn't sound like he was asking about that specific question anyway.
There were other objections upthread to B37's comments that I don't remember, these are just a few about which I thought, watching the testimony, Oh that's makes more sense of that juror interview. It didn't all come across so well without the context. But I don't think, especially after rereading her full comments, that she's an idiot or anything.
posted by torticat at 11:01 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
B37 wasn't as bad as all that. She was speaking from the perspective of having been immersed in the trial in a way that the CNN viewing audience obviously hadn't been (and neither had Anderson Cooper). Like I said up above, her comments on "those people" (and she never used those words) directly reflected an exchange in the trial between Rachel Jeantel and the lawyers, and she accepted what Jeantel said there.
She's been faulted for saying race didn't enter into the discussion, but B29 said the same thing. It appears they actually didn't think racial profiling was a significant driver in what happened, but that Zimmerman's suspicions were based on the recent history of break-ins in the neighborhood. Either way, it probably didn't have bearing on the narrow question they had to decide, i.e., did Zimmerman ultimately fire his gun in self defense.
She was criticized upthread for mixing up her witnesses, but in that little exchange it was actually Anderson Cooper who didn't recognize which witness she was talking about--the medic in Vietnam who supposedly had experience in identifying the owners of voices yelling in stress.
Also, the question and answer the judge instructed the jury to ignore--the one where Serino said he believed Zimmerman had been telling the truth--it was actually only one Q&A that was disallowed, out of like at least 30 minutes of testimony that had conveyed exactly the same idea. The juror would have arrived at the conclusion she stated in the interview even if that answer had never been given at all. And Anderson Cooper didn't sound like he was asking about that specific question anyway.
There were other objections upthread to B37's comments that I don't remember, these are just a few about which I thought, watching the testimony, Oh that's makes more sense of that juror interview. It didn't all come across so well without the context. But I don't think, especially after rereading her full comments, that she's an idiot or anything.
posted by torticat at 11:01 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Proving "depraved mind" was the only way the prosecution could defeat self defense.
Isn't that backwards? It's not like the jury could conclude that he acted in self defense but it didn't matter because he also acted out of a depraved mind, and therefore he was guilty of 2nd degree murder. Self defense is the trump card.
posted by torticat at 11:07 PM on July 26, 2013
Isn't that backwards? It's not like the jury could conclude that he acted in self defense but it didn't matter because he also acted out of a depraved mind, and therefore he was guilty of 2nd degree murder. Self defense is the trump card.
posted by torticat at 11:07 PM on July 26, 2013
but in that little exchange it was actually Anderson Cooper who didn't recognize which witness she was talking about--the medic in Vietnam who supposedly had experience in identifying the owners of voices yelling in stress
Here is a transcript:
So she had completely mixed up two witnesses. I saw it when first broadcast and knew immediately what had happened and that I had a better grasp of the evidence, as someone who saw it on TV, than B-37 whose duty it was to pay close attention. Sad.
posted by Justinian at 11:25 PM on July 26, 2013
Here is a transcript:
COOPER: Was there a particular witness that stands out to you? Who did you find to be the most credible?Cooper clearly knew she was confused but just said OK because arguing with B37 was not likely to lead to anything useful. AC specifically asked her if she was talking about the medic in Vietnam and she said no that she was talking about the defense medical examiner. But she was not. As Cooper indicated, she meant John Donnelly.
JUROR: The doctor -- and I don't know his name.
COOPER: The doctor for -- that the defense called?
JUROR: Yes.
COOPER: All right.
JUROR: Yes.
COOPER: What about him?
JUROR: I thought he was awe inspiring, the experiences that he had had over in the war, and I just never thought of anybody that could recognize somebody's voice yelling, in like a terrible terror voice when he was just previously a half hour ago playing cards with him.
COOPER: This was the witness that -- the friend of George Zimmerman's who had had military experience?
JUROR: No, that was -- this was the defense --
COOPER: The defense medical examiner?
JUROR: Yes.
COOPER: OK.
So she had completely mixed up two witnesses. I saw it when first broadcast and knew immediately what had happened and that I had a better grasp of the evidence, as someone who saw it on TV, than B-37 whose duty it was to pay close attention. Sad.
posted by Justinian at 11:25 PM on July 26, 2013
Oh you are right, I didn't realize those two were the same guy (Z's friend, and the Vietnam vet). I did see she answered "yes" to "medical examiner" but just took that to be part of the confusion of the exchange in which they clearly weren't understanding each other.
Still not sure she REALLY thought she was talking about the defense medical examiner, because it seems like she would have said that at the start instead of "the doctor... and I don't know his name." I think she was having trouble keeping up with AC's interjections. Clearly she didn't mean to say "no" to the question about the friend with military experience, because she had just specifically described his testimony about the war. But yeah, there was a mixup there.
posted by torticat at 12:17 AM on July 27, 2013
Still not sure she REALLY thought she was talking about the defense medical examiner, because it seems like she would have said that at the start instead of "the doctor... and I don't know his name." I think she was having trouble keeping up with AC's interjections. Clearly she didn't mean to say "no" to the question about the friend with military experience, because she had just specifically described his testimony about the war. But yeah, there was a mixup there.
posted by torticat at 12:17 AM on July 27, 2013
I never thought B37 was an idiot, but she's certainly somewhat ignorant. Unaware. I watched both parts of that interview and facepalmed a bunch of times. She's not stupid, she's uninformed, sheltered. Goes back to jury selection for me.
And then to know that she immediately ran to a book agent to try to get a book deal (the agent said the juror approached her, not the other way around) - well from her statements and her behavior she is sheltered & somewhat ignorant. These things matter. You could have the same outcome but have that same juror come out and say race was a factor but here is why they still decided x. OJ's behavior after that verdict. Zimmerman's behavior after killing a teen and then joking about a hoodie while he was briefly in jail. Those things make a difference in how an outcome is received. So I still wonder how you pick someone who would hear about the case beforehand, then watch everything that happened, and live in this country, and think race wasn't a factor. I'd love to know just where the jurors lived, area-wise.
I don't think there have to be perfect jurors with Ph.D's, but B37 certainly makes you wonder how they were picking jurors.
posted by cashman at 9:07 AM on July 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
And then to know that she immediately ran to a book agent to try to get a book deal (the agent said the juror approached her, not the other way around) - well from her statements and her behavior she is sheltered & somewhat ignorant. These things matter. You could have the same outcome but have that same juror come out and say race was a factor but here is why they still decided x. OJ's behavior after that verdict. Zimmerman's behavior after killing a teen and then joking about a hoodie while he was briefly in jail. Those things make a difference in how an outcome is received. So I still wonder how you pick someone who would hear about the case beforehand, then watch everything that happened, and live in this country, and think race wasn't a factor. I'd love to know just where the jurors lived, area-wise.
I don't think there have to be perfect jurors with Ph.D's, but B37 certainly makes you wonder how they were picking jurors.
posted by cashman at 9:07 AM on July 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think there have to be perfect jurors with Ph.D's, but B37 certainly makes you wonder how they were picking jurors.
The common wisdom is that lawyers tend to avoid selecting jurors with advanced educations. The research seems to indicate that more highly educated people are more likely to vote for conviction and to be more favorable to the prosecution, apparently unless you're an academic in Nevada. However, a recent study in Connecticut seemed to contradict the common wisdom. A factor that is bourne out by the research is that racial bias is a very strong factor in excusing people from jury duty. [pdf]
That said, every time I get called up they ask who has college educations and all the people who raise their hands get excused, so I tend to think that the research in Connecticut might not apply to other regions.
posted by winna at 6:18 PM on July 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
The common wisdom is that lawyers tend to avoid selecting jurors with advanced educations. The research seems to indicate that more highly educated people are more likely to vote for conviction and to be more favorable to the prosecution, apparently unless you're an academic in Nevada. However, a recent study in Connecticut seemed to contradict the common wisdom. A factor that is bourne out by the research is that racial bias is a very strong factor in excusing people from jury duty. [pdf]
That said, every time I get called up they ask who has college educations and all the people who raise their hands get excused, so I tend to think that the research in Connecticut might not apply to other regions.
posted by winna at 6:18 PM on July 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
Thanks for taking the time winna. It's up to me to find alternate research, because that one is 1981, citing cases from the 70's and before. Too much has changed since then. Anyway, I had some other commitments when the trial was going on so I have a bunch of questions that were probably already asked and answered, so I'll just poke around and learn. And then comment on the next time, which unfortunately probably won't be that long from today.
posted by cashman at 7:26 PM on July 27, 2013
posted by cashman at 7:26 PM on July 27, 2013
Funny quote via winna's Connecticut link, from Mark Twain:
“We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve [people] every day who don't know anything and can't read.”
So, not a new criticism apparently. But cashman, I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. Do you think jurors should bring to bear opinions based on media reports, the views of the general public, and so on? Do you have that much faith in the media and in public opinion (as set against a presentation of the facts of the case, as put forth as best as possible by the prosecution and the defense)? I don't see how allowing a lot of preconceptions into jury deliberations would make for a more just verdict.
I thought the book concept proposed by B37 was fascinating and could have gotten at exactly some of these questions, comparing the perspective of a sequestered juror to that of her (attorney) husband on the outside. But of course I understand how the idea of profiting from this case, especially so soon, was seen as tasteless. It seems like they could have got around that by donating the profits; but it also appears the agent had other problems with the juror, having apparently found her comments on CNN offensive.
There was an interview with an alternate juror a couple days ago, and putting together his comments with what B29 and B37 said, it seems the jurors genuinely didn't have an idea how emotional and divisive the trial was on the outside. And that it was emotionally tough for them when they found out, maybe especially for B29.
(Regarding the book proposal specifically, it does seem B37's husband at least should have been more aware about this.)
posted by torticat at 12:47 AM on July 28, 2013
“We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve [people] every day who don't know anything and can't read.”
So, not a new criticism apparently. But cashman, I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. Do you think jurors should bring to bear opinions based on media reports, the views of the general public, and so on? Do you have that much faith in the media and in public opinion (as set against a presentation of the facts of the case, as put forth as best as possible by the prosecution and the defense)? I don't see how allowing a lot of preconceptions into jury deliberations would make for a more just verdict.
I thought the book concept proposed by B37 was fascinating and could have gotten at exactly some of these questions, comparing the perspective of a sequestered juror to that of her (attorney) husband on the outside. But of course I understand how the idea of profiting from this case, especially so soon, was seen as tasteless. It seems like they could have got around that by donating the profits; but it also appears the agent had other problems with the juror, having apparently found her comments on CNN offensive.
There was an interview with an alternate juror a couple days ago, and putting together his comments with what B29 and B37 said, it seems the jurors genuinely didn't have an idea how emotional and divisive the trial was on the outside. And that it was emotionally tough for them when they found out, maybe especially for B29.
(Regarding the book proposal specifically, it does seem B37's husband at least should have been more aware about this.)
posted by torticat at 12:47 AM on July 28, 2013
Skittles, Trayvon Martin and Corporate Responsibility
One of the web's biggest social media successes suddenly goes silent
posted by clavdivs at 8:58 AM on July 28, 2013
Looks like the headline previously had the words "Strange fruit" in it and they wisely elided it but it still lives on in the URL.
posted by jessamyn at 9:21 AM on July 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn at 9:21 AM on July 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
Could jury nullification have applied in this Zimmerman trial?
Absolutely, 100%, jury nullification could have applied to the Zimmerman trial. But the problem is, it's not just that judges dislike it enough to make sure jurors who have heard of it never get in, they actively hate jury nullification to the extent of jailing 80-year old men who mention it to people in front of the courthouse.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comments on jury selection are also hugely relevant in terms of who is allowed on and who is not allowed on.
I'm not sure why we want to make sure juries are uneducated when they make their decisions - I'm very sure they were never meant to be this much.
posted by corb at 10:56 AM on July 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Absolutely, 100%, jury nullification could have applied to the Zimmerman trial. But the problem is, it's not just that judges dislike it enough to make sure jurors who have heard of it never get in, they actively hate jury nullification to the extent of jailing 80-year old men who mention it to people in front of the courthouse.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comments on jury selection are also hugely relevant in terms of who is allowed on and who is not allowed on.
I'm not sure why we want to make sure juries are uneducated when they make their decisions - I'm very sure they were never meant to be this much.
posted by corb at 10:56 AM on July 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
But the problem is, it's not just that judges dislike it enough to make sure jurors who have heard of it never get in, they actively hate jury nullification to the extent of jailing 80-year old men who mention it to people in front of the courthouse.
That is an active distortion of the article you linked.
posted by angrycat at 12:39 PM on July 28, 2013 [7 favorites]
That is an active distortion of the article you linked.
posted by angrycat at 12:39 PM on July 28, 2013 [7 favorites]
Wow, that's a serious distortion. From the article that corb linked and totally misrepresented:
Prosecutors said such advocacy, “directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”
But the judge, Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court, wrote that a person violated the jury tampering statute only when he or she knowingly tried to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.”
Judge Wood added that she would not “stretch the interpretation” of the statute to cover speech that was “not meant to influence” a juror’s actions in a specific case.
In other words, the judge did not jail an 80 year old man. The judge dismissed the charges.
posted by palomar at 12:48 PM on July 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Prosecutors said such advocacy, “directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”
But the judge, Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court, wrote that a person violated the jury tampering statute only when he or she knowingly tried to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.”
Judge Wood added that she would not “stretch the interpretation” of the statute to cover speech that was “not meant to influence” a juror’s actions in a specific case.
In other words, the judge did not jail an 80 year old man. The judge dismissed the charges.
posted by palomar at 12:48 PM on July 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
I thought the book concept proposed by B37 was fascinating
To me it's disgusting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Rappers have noted for years how many people are completely ignorant to a lot of what happens in America. For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known?!" - the instant this got posted and was making the rounds online, it was obvious. I posted it to metafilter because it was pretty obvious to me. It got deleted because it was too close to a post about a young white girl who was buying a house in Florida.
I just listened to that Juror's testimony again and I just can't even deal with how anyone listens to that and doesn't hear at least 50 problems with what she is saying, and not saying. If nothing sounds bad to you, if you think "hey, I'd love to read her book" instead of being nauseated at the thought, then there is a gulf between what actually happens in America, and what you know about.
posted by cashman at 1:46 PM on July 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
To me it's disgusting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Rappers have noted for years how many people are completely ignorant to a lot of what happens in America. For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known?!" - the instant this got posted and was making the rounds online, it was obvious. I posted it to metafilter because it was pretty obvious to me. It got deleted because it was too close to a post about a young white girl who was buying a house in Florida.
I just listened to that Juror's testimony again and I just can't even deal with how anyone listens to that and doesn't hear at least 50 problems with what she is saying, and not saying. If nothing sounds bad to you, if you think "hey, I'd love to read her book" instead of being nauseated at the thought, then there is a gulf between what actually happens in America, and what you know about.
posted by cashman at 1:46 PM on July 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
In other words, the judge did not jail an 80 year old man. The judge dismissed the charges.
After Julian had already been arrested and jailed. He is a jury nullification activist and has a long and storied history of going to jail and being arrested over such things. I grabbed the most recent "respectable" (NYT) link about his actions, but here are some other sources. Heicklen recently sought and received asylum in Israel, while facing possible jail time in California and everyone's favorite, Florida, of all places, which is where his most recent court difficulties were.
posted by corb at 2:05 PM on July 28, 2013
After Julian had already been arrested and jailed. He is a jury nullification activist and has a long and storied history of going to jail and being arrested over such things. I grabbed the most recent "respectable" (NYT) link about his actions, but here are some other sources. Heicklen recently sought and received asylum in Israel, while facing possible jail time in California and everyone's favorite, Florida, of all places, which is where his most recent court difficulties were.
posted by corb at 2:05 PM on July 28, 2013
We shouldn't criminalize jury nullification, but we also shouldn't celebrate it. Nullification goes far beyond civil disobedience to the point where it undermines the rule of law itself. In extreme cases where the law itself is unjust, I understand why people would favor its use, but the correct solution is to push to change those laws. If anything, nullification just reduces the public's visibility of the unjust laws and takes energy away from the fight to overturn them.
I hate that George Zimmerman is a free man today, but given Florida's terrible self defense law and the flawed case made by the prosecution, I understand why the jury ruled as they did. Juror B29 was right to hold out for as long as she could, but ultimately she also did the right thing by acknowledging that it wasn't her job to change the unjust law by ignoring it and holding out for a hung jury.
Nullification is basically an unpatchable exploit in the legal system's source code. Advocating it as a general solution to any injustice before all other options have been exhausted is irresponsible.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on July 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
I hate that George Zimmerman is a free man today, but given Florida's terrible self defense law and the flawed case made by the prosecution, I understand why the jury ruled as they did. Juror B29 was right to hold out for as long as she could, but ultimately she also did the right thing by acknowledging that it wasn't her job to change the unjust law by ignoring it and holding out for a hung jury.
Nullification is basically an unpatchable exploit in the legal system's source code. Advocating it as a general solution to any injustice before all other options have been exhausted is irresponsible.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on July 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
Nullification is basically an unpatchable exploit in the legal system's source code.
...one which was, like the double jeopardy prohibition giving the state just one shot at you, put there very deliberately by people who knew exactly what they were doing. The right of juries not to be punished if they failed to meet the expectation of the court was sealed after the trial of William Penn in 1670. The US system inherited that case law.
The fundamental problem is that governments are assholes and are much more dangerous than any individual person ever could be and so they need to be kept on a short leash.
posted by localroger at 3:34 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
...one which was, like the double jeopardy prohibition giving the state just one shot at you, put there very deliberately by people who knew exactly what they were doing. The right of juries not to be punished if they failed to meet the expectation of the court was sealed after the trial of William Penn in 1670. The US system inherited that case law.
The fundamental problem is that governments are assholes and are much more dangerous than any individual person ever could be and so they need to be kept on a short leash.
posted by localroger at 3:34 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
The fundamental problem is that governments are assholes and are much more dangerous than any individual person
Really? I think the many Southern white juries who nullified murder convictions against white killers of black victims are as asshoe-lish as any government I've seen.
I recognize that the possible fixes to the problem of nullification would be worse than nullification itself, which is what I was getting at by calling it an "unpatchable exploit." It's not that we can't, but we shouldn't. At the same time, the number of times it's appropriate for citizens to use it are vanishingly rare.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:42 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Really? I think the many Southern white juries who nullified murder convictions against white killers of black victims are as asshoe-lish as any government I've seen.
I recognize that the possible fixes to the problem of nullification would be worse than nullification itself, which is what I was getting at by calling it an "unpatchable exploit." It's not that we can't, but we shouldn't. At the same time, the number of times it's appropriate for citizens to use it are vanishingly rare.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:42 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
cashman
I posted it to metafilter because it was pretty obvious to me.
Wait, what was your post about? The book deal?
For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known?!"
This is from B37's statement:
“I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice."
This is from the interview with B29:
Roberts: Maddy says she had no idea that the world was watching so closely. After the jury was released, she says she crumbled as the negative news reports about their verdict erupted.
Juror B29: I literally fell on my knees and I broke down, my husband was holding me, I was screaming, and I kept saying to myself, "I feel like I killed him."
The last part of B37's statement echoes exactly the conflict that B29 expressed again and again in her interview. And both of them talk about being somewhat oblivious to outside opinion because of their sequestration.
So... what is it about this perspective, voiced by two jurors who started deliberations at opposite ends of the spectrum, that you find so unbelievable or naive? And why is the idea of a book about the perspective of a sequestered juror nauseating to you? Again, I totally understand the idea of profiting being offensive, but it seems that your comment was about more than that, like you are saying that for me even to be interested in reading such a book is disgusting.
posted by torticat at 5:22 PM on July 28, 2013
I posted it to metafilter because it was pretty obvious to me.
Wait, what was your post about? The book deal?
For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known?!"
This is from B37's statement:
“I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice."
This is from the interview with B29:
Roberts: Maddy says she had no idea that the world was watching so closely. After the jury was released, she says she crumbled as the negative news reports about their verdict erupted.
Juror B29: I literally fell on my knees and I broke down, my husband was holding me, I was screaming, and I kept saying to myself, "I feel like I killed him."
The last part of B37's statement echoes exactly the conflict that B29 expressed again and again in her interview. And both of them talk about being somewhat oblivious to outside opinion because of their sequestration.
So... what is it about this perspective, voiced by two jurors who started deliberations at opposite ends of the spectrum, that you find so unbelievable or naive? And why is the idea of a book about the perspective of a sequestered juror nauseating to you? Again, I totally understand the idea of profiting being offensive, but it seems that your comment was about more than that, like you are saying that for me even to be interested in reading such a book is disgusting.
posted by torticat at 5:22 PM on July 28, 2013
Really? I think the many Southern white juries who nullified murder convictions against white killers of black victims are as asshoe-lish as any government I've seen.
Funny, I don't recall any of those juries building death camps or developing atomic weapons or starting wars. Because no matter how much of an asshole you are, as an individual there is a certain level of mischief you simply cannot aspire to compared to what a government can do.
posted by localroger at 5:56 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Funny, I don't recall any of those juries building death camps or developing atomic weapons or starting wars. Because no matter how much of an asshole you are, as an individual there is a certain level of mischief you simply cannot aspire to compared to what a government can do.
posted by localroger at 5:56 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wait, what was your post about? The book deal?
No, the original post about Trayvon Martin's death.
So... what is it about this perspective, voiced by two jurors
Nope. Saying you didn't know the world was watching so closing and then bursting into tears and screaming feeling bad about the death of a teenager is worlds away from repeatedly identifying with George and immediately going for a book deal to make money and get fame moments after acquitting the killer.
like you are saying that for me even to be interested in reading such a book is disgusting.
Read what you want to. My shift is over. I just don't have the time today. This is about the time where Furious styles says to the officer that asks "is there a problem here?" and Furious says "Yes. It's just a shame you don't know what it is".
posted by cashman at 6:23 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
No, the original post about Trayvon Martin's death.
So... what is it about this perspective, voiced by two jurors
Nope. Saying you didn't know the world was watching so closing and then bursting into tears and screaming feeling bad about the death of a teenager is worlds away from repeatedly identifying with George and immediately going for a book deal to make money and get fame moments after acquitting the killer.
like you are saying that for me even to be interested in reading such a book is disgusting.
Read what you want to. My shift is over. I just don't have the time today. This is about the time where Furious styles says to the officer that asks "is there a problem here?" and Furious says "Yes. It's just a shame you don't know what it is".
posted by cashman at 6:23 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Funny, I don't recall any of those juries building death camps or developing atomic weapons or starting wars. Because no matter how much of an asshole you are, as an individual there as a certain level of mischief you simply cannot aspire to compared to what a government can do.
Well, I see the level of assholery as roughly equivalent, it's just that governments have more power to turn potential assholery into kinetic assholery by marshaling the resources of a nation state.
What are you arguing against here, exactly? I've already said that I don't think jury nullification should be eliminated.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:43 PM on July 28, 2013
Well, I see the level of assholery as roughly equivalent, it's just that governments have more power to turn potential assholery into kinetic assholery by marshaling the resources of a nation state.
What are you arguing against here, exactly? I've already said that I don't think jury nullification should be eliminated.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:43 PM on July 28, 2013
torticat, I suppose my thinking is that IF the elements of 2nd degree murder are somehow proved by meeting the "depraved mind" standard THEN the self defense argument is diminished in the jury's eyes. I am in the camp that is not pleased by Zimmerman walking away but understand why that happened under the law.
posted by maggieb at 8:03 PM on July 28, 2013
posted by maggieb at 8:03 PM on July 28, 2013
Nope. Saying you didn't know the world was watching so closing and then bursting into tears and screaming feeling bad about the death of a teenager is worlds away
The "perspective" I was talking about is that both jurors were sheltered from what the outside world was saying. I was responding to your comment For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known," as you can tell from the fact that I quoted that comment.
It's fine if you don't want to take the time to respond, but I'm not being obtuse, and I haven't expressed any outrageous opinions. You seem just generally angry (and insulting), and when I ask you to explain, you respond with more bluster. Whatever, I guess.
posted by torticat at 10:41 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
The "perspective" I was talking about is that both jurors were sheltered from what the outside world was saying. I was responding to your comment For this woman to act like "oh how could I have known," as you can tell from the fact that I quoted that comment.
It's fine if you don't want to take the time to respond, but I'm not being obtuse, and I haven't expressed any outrageous opinions. You seem just generally angry (and insulting), and when I ask you to explain, you respond with more bluster. Whatever, I guess.
posted by torticat at 10:41 PM on July 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah that was insulting. Sorry. Okay, as far as the perspective you're talking about, I think you're trying to group two things together with a thin thread that are different responses. I do think it's disgusting to be a juror on a case where a kid is shot to death, and then immediately think about (obviously during and right after) a book deal. And her interview with Andersen Cooper was just all seeing things charitably through George's eyes, seeing nothing charitably through Trayvon's, and just being ignorant of a great many things. Yes, I think that her doing that is disgusting. If a person is all excited and thinks it's great that she did that, I guess it would be kind of obvious that I would find that whole thing disgusting. If you're familiar with America and American history (this part isn't an insult, I previously assumed you were) I don't think it's hard to see why reasonable people would kind of get squicked out by "Not Guilty. Okay, let me call an agent so I can get a book deal."
Which kind of seems suspect anyway. She knows the case is so controversial that it is widely known and that she could get a book deal out of her experiences, but .... why would she think there were no feelings behind that? I guess that goes to her ignorance of what black men face in this society.
You can bet she will end up writing that book though. Just not now. She'll wait until things blow over.
What other questions do you have, torticat. I feel like you don't have problems with anything B37 said, and feel like she isn't ignorant at all. Unless you were just explaining the "those people" thing, (which I didn't have a problem with). But I'd rather not assume, so let me know. My shift has just started so I'm up for some translation, I suppose. If you sincerely don't get why reasonable people are angry (though it is specific, not general as you say), I can try to explain.
posted by cashman at 6:17 AM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
Which kind of seems suspect anyway. She knows the case is so controversial that it is widely known and that she could get a book deal out of her experiences, but .... why would she think there were no feelings behind that? I guess that goes to her ignorance of what black men face in this society.
You can bet she will end up writing that book though. Just not now. She'll wait until things blow over.
What other questions do you have, torticat. I feel like you don't have problems with anything B37 said, and feel like she isn't ignorant at all. Unless you were just explaining the "those people" thing, (which I didn't have a problem with). But I'd rather not assume, so let me know. My shift has just started so I'm up for some translation, I suppose. If you sincerely don't get why reasonable people are angry (though it is specific, not general as you say), I can try to explain.
posted by cashman at 6:17 AM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
Pensacola deputies shoot 60 year old man in his own yard
posted by cairdeas at 11:51 AM on July 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 11:51 AM on July 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
^ A "neighbor" called 911 on this unarmed man for "burgling," as he was reaching into his own mother's car on his own property.
posted by cairdeas at 12:01 PM on July 29, 2013
posted by cairdeas at 12:01 PM on July 29, 2013
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling 911 over suspicious circumstances - even if they are barely anything. That is what 911 or 311 or various help numbers are for. The blame should squarely be put on the deputies, who have the higher burden to act responsibly.
Which is the real problem - that police have a lot of leeway, with little real oversight on their actions. (Yes, I know there are Internal Affairs departments and such, but they don't seem to be doing much to stop the flood of police shootings.)
posted by corb at 12:06 PM on July 29, 2013
Which is the real problem - that police have a lot of leeway, with little real oversight on their actions. (Yes, I know there are Internal Affairs departments and such, but they don't seem to be doing much to stop the flood of police shootings.)
posted by corb at 12:06 PM on July 29, 2013
What's wrong is when a black man reaching into a car, or walking down the street or just living life normally, is considered a "suspicious circumstance."
posted by cairdeas at 12:08 PM on July 29, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 12:08 PM on July 29, 2013 [13 favorites]
Cornel West: Obama’s Response to Trayvon Martin Case Belies Failure to Challenge "New Jim Crow"
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:09 PM on July 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
And, no, there’s no doubt that the vicious legacy of white supremacy affects the black upper classes, it affects the black middle classes. But those kinds of stories hide and conceal just how ugly and intensely vicious it is for black poor, brown poor. And so you end up with, if that’s the case, why hasn’t the new Jim Crow been a priority in the Obama administration? Why has not the new Jim Crow been a priority for Eric Holder?Wikipedia summary of Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
posted by audi alteram partem at 12:09 PM on July 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure I've reached into my mother's car dozens of times in my lifetime and no "neighbor" ever called 911 on me nor did I get shot by the cops. I've also set off my own car alarm at least 3 times, and nobody called 911 on me then either nor did I get shot at any of those times.
posted by cairdeas at 12:09 PM on July 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by cairdeas at 12:09 PM on July 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
Some good info would be in the call to the police. Did they just see a figure out there in a car, or could they tell more about the person?
Funny thing is just like Chappelle made the joke about house burglaries, Chris Rock made a joke about being assumed he was stealing his own car. (graphic language)
A lot of what makes rappers and comedians great is insight. When these incidents happen, it isn't uncommon that you can find where some rapper or comedian has noted the problem, years beforehand. (Hence Chuck D. of Public Enemy long ago coining the term "the Black CNN" referring to rap)
posted by cashman at 12:25 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
Funny thing is just like Chappelle made the joke about house burglaries, Chris Rock made a joke about being assumed he was stealing his own car. (graphic language)
A lot of what makes rappers and comedians great is insight. When these incidents happen, it isn't uncommon that you can find where some rapper or comedian has noted the problem, years beforehand. (Hence Chuck D. of Public Enemy long ago coining the term "the Black CNN" referring to rap)
posted by cashman at 12:25 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
Hence Chuck D. of Public Enemy long ago coining the term "the Black CNN" referring to rap
Never heard that. That's brilliant.
posted by sweetkid at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
Never heard that. That's brilliant.
posted by sweetkid at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
What's wrong is when a black man reaching into a car, or walking down the street or just living life normally, is considered a "suspicious circumstance."
The thing is, there's this wide range of behaviors that people call suspicious, and what they are often depends on the individual themselves. It also differs greatly between the city and the country. Me? I won't call the police unless something is going on for more than an hour or I think someone's about to be imminently harmed. But when I was living in a suburb, I once had the police called on me because I was moving a piano. At night. Because who would be out moving a piano at night? Clearly suspicious. Who even moves a piano by themselves? THIEVES, that's who. Piano-stealing THIEVES.
These things sometimes do have to do with color - I'm not denying that there are racists out there who think brown people even existing is suspicious. But at the same time, there are also those nosy old biddies who think anyone out after dark is suspicious. Or someone on a skateboard. Or teenagers muttering to each other.
I'd argue that the correct thing to do is let the old biddies AND the racists call, but have the police sort them out. "No, that doesn't sound like the kind of thing we need to come down there for." "Did he actually break the window or just open the door?" "Is there anything else that might make you think there's something wrong?"
posted by corb at 3:28 PM on July 29, 2013
The thing is, there's this wide range of behaviors that people call suspicious, and what they are often depends on the individual themselves. It also differs greatly between the city and the country. Me? I won't call the police unless something is going on for more than an hour or I think someone's about to be imminently harmed. But when I was living in a suburb, I once had the police called on me because I was moving a piano. At night. Because who would be out moving a piano at night? Clearly suspicious. Who even moves a piano by themselves? THIEVES, that's who. Piano-stealing THIEVES.
These things sometimes do have to do with color - I'm not denying that there are racists out there who think brown people even existing is suspicious. But at the same time, there are also those nosy old biddies who think anyone out after dark is suspicious. Or someone on a skateboard. Or teenagers muttering to each other.
I'd argue that the correct thing to do is let the old biddies AND the racists call, but have the police sort them out. "No, that doesn't sound like the kind of thing we need to come down there for." "Did he actually break the window or just open the door?" "Is there anything else that might make you think there's something wrong?"
posted by corb at 3:28 PM on July 29, 2013
I'm not sure I agree with that. For one, if you're calling the police, I think you need to know what you're calling about, and stand behind that claim. If you're going to call armed officers to arrive at a scene, then I think you need to do that with some understanding of what you're doing. The job of the police is to show up and assess.
Secondly, it allows people to continually treat certain groups of people like threats, and feel okay doing so. It allows them to have certain people followed in the mall, or in a department store. It allows them to keep thinking that certain people are dangerous irrespective of any behavior.
Moving out large household items at night if you aren't recognized as the property owner - that seems like a reasonable "possible burglary" call. Where night is after 9pm.
But anyway, to me, the problem starts when one person decides people with guns need to come to the scene, without good information that there is indeed a need for that. There are definitely busybodies around, but in general people need to be responsible for the calls they make, and shouldn't be allowed to continue being busybodies and racists if they are calling police for situations they shouldn't be.
But back to the subject of the thead, does anyone who watched a lot of the trial feel like answering questions? I have a couple. What happened to Rachel's testimony that trayvon asked "why are you following me?" - what was George's response to that? I know he didn't testify, but if he didn't include that in his story, how was that explained away? Or was that not the testimony, or was it recanted?
posted by cashman at 3:45 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
Secondly, it allows people to continually treat certain groups of people like threats, and feel okay doing so. It allows them to have certain people followed in the mall, or in a department store. It allows them to keep thinking that certain people are dangerous irrespective of any behavior.
Moving out large household items at night if you aren't recognized as the property owner - that seems like a reasonable "possible burglary" call. Where night is after 9pm.
But anyway, to me, the problem starts when one person decides people with guns need to come to the scene, without good information that there is indeed a need for that. There are definitely busybodies around, but in general people need to be responsible for the calls they make, and shouldn't be allowed to continue being busybodies and racists if they are calling police for situations they shouldn't be.
But back to the subject of the thead, does anyone who watched a lot of the trial feel like answering questions? I have a couple. What happened to Rachel's testimony that trayvon asked "why are you following me?" - what was George's response to that? I know he didn't testify, but if he didn't include that in his story, how was that explained away? Or was that not the testimony, or was it recanted?
posted by cashman at 3:45 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
Calling the police shouldn't be the first choice for someone reaching into a car, for crying out loud. So much fear.
posted by agregoli at 4:12 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 4:12 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
In the followup article on that Roy Middleton link, it's reported that there were 17 shell casings found at the scene. Some googling reveals that the duty weapon of the Escambia Country Sheriffs Office is the fourth generation Glock 22 with a standard magazine capacity of 15. There were two deputy sheriffs present, so even if one of them discharged 15+1 rounds the other still most likely would have had to have shot once. It's a miracle that this guy is alive. "He's black and armed with blackness and he's lunging at us, better unload the whole magazine..."
posted by Rhomboid at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Rhomboid at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
I'd argue that the correct thing to do is let the old biddies AND the racists call, but have the police sort them out.
Easy to say when you aren't the one that racists are calling about. I'm sure you'd be fine with explaining to the police who you are and why you aren't dangerous every few days, of course.
posted by empath at 6:11 PM on July 29, 2013 [7 favorites]
Easy to say when you aren't the one that racists are calling about. I'm sure you'd be fine with explaining to the police who you are and why you aren't dangerous every few days, of course.
posted by empath at 6:11 PM on July 29, 2013 [7 favorites]
Video of Violent, Rioting Surfers Shows White Culture of Lawlessness
More important than white politicians are the white parents. I'd like to ask the caregivers of the children in these videos what they've been doing. When did so many white parents fall asleep at the wheel? You can complain about poor schools all you'd like, but the fact of the matter is that it's the parents of these children who are letting them leave the house looking like slobs in their baggy board shorts and Hollister t-shirts. It's the parents of these kids who are letting them listen to violent, self-destructive trash like "Anarchy in the UK" or "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue"—performed loudly by noted conservative rocker Johnny Ramone.posted by zombieflanders at 6:35 PM on July 29, 2013 [16 favorites]
As I said, I know a lot of whites don't want to hear this kind of tough talk. But as an American of color who considers himself an ally to the white community, I'm just tired of seeing young, belligerent white people disgrace themselves year after year at surfing events, horse racing infields, and Ivy League campuses. Whites in America have been out from under their European ancestors' boot heels for centuries; California specifically outlawed preferences for nonwhites in state hiring and education nearly two decades ago. So being "oppressed" is no longer an excuse for behavior like this. How long must we wait for the white community to get its act together?
I never thought I'd say this, but y'all have to read the comments in the gawker link. Not kidding.
posted by rtha at 6:42 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by rtha at 6:42 PM on July 29, 2013 [4 favorites]
Holy mother of God. The Gawker article is brilliant on its face, but getting the Internet comment horde to fall in meta line like that is something out of Lord of the Rings.
posted by localroger at 7:08 PM on July 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by localroger at 7:08 PM on July 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
I love that Gawker article. I was sort of considering posting it to the front page but I have really bad judgement as to which race posts generate a good conversation and which ones just end up fighty, and it seemed too likely that we'd just end up rehashing this conversation there, so I figured I'd see if someone else would do it. But yes. Brilliant comments. Gawker's really done a lot to make its comments suck less.
posted by NoraReed at 7:33 PM on July 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by NoraReed at 7:33 PM on July 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
A few of my favorite comments:
It's all that folk music they listen to. Why won't any white leaders take a stand?
---
Look at them destroying property, it's like they were born with no regard to others. Where did they come from? I'm frightened by their actions but mostly I'm mad at America and how it's letting vermin like that run rampants (sp).
---
In our culture today... white boys should know better than to wear board shorts and a backwards baseball cap. It conveys the wrong message.
posted by rtha at 7:35 PM on July 29, 2013
It's all that folk music they listen to. Why won't any white leaders take a stand?
---
Look at them destroying property, it's like they were born with no regard to others. Where did they come from? I'm frightened by their actions but mostly I'm mad at America and how it's letting vermin like that run rampants (sp).
---
In our culture today... white boys should know better than to wear board shorts and a backwards baseball cap. It conveys the wrong message.
posted by rtha at 7:35 PM on July 29, 2013
I just posted it on facebook to annoy all my racist relatives.
posted by empath at 7:36 PM on July 29, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by empath at 7:36 PM on July 29, 2013 [7 favorites]
I was sort of considering posting it to the front page
I think it's funny enough to deserves its own post.
posted by homunculus at 7:56 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think it's funny enough to deserves its own post.
posted by homunculus at 7:56 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
deserve. Dagnabit.
posted by homunculus at 9:12 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 9:12 PM on July 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201371511515880981.html
FTFA:
FTFA:
"And so we got a neighbor called to testify that a black man burgled her house. Why was that relevant? What was she doing there, testifying in a totally unrelated trial?posted by mikelieman at 11:34 PM on July 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
A tweet from The Nation magazine explained it perfectly: "White supremacy: the idea that some black men must be killed with impunity to keep society at large safe."
The logic of white supremacy perfectly explained why that neighbor was allowed to testify. The logic of white supremacy perfectly explained why Trayvon Martin had to die. And the logic of white supremacy perfectly explained why Zimmerman had to get away with it. "
Fighting Florida's School-to-Prison Pipeline
The term “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to a set of circumstances that lead to a large number of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, especially of black students, for mostly minor offenses in schools across the country. In many schools, punishable offenses include truancy, or “honor” or “status” violations, such as being noisy in class or talking back to a teacher. A 2011 study of Texas public schools found that 97 percent of suspended students were not required to be punished under state code, meaning their exclusions from school were discretionary, and that black and Hispanic children were more likely than whites to receive harsh punishments for similar infractions. Statistics for the 2009-2010 school year from the Department of Education, show that black students nationwide, especially boys, are far more likely to be suspended than white students. When students are out of school, activists say they’re more likely to come into contact with the juvenile justice system or be arrested. In an analysis of 2012 data from Chicago public schools, black students made up 76 percent of around 4,300 total school-based arrests despite constituting about 42 percent of the student population, with 84 percent of those arrests for misdemeanors.posted by zombieflanders at 6:46 AM on July 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Florida has an active school-to-prison pipeline. The state led the nation in school-based arrests or referrals to law enforcement during the 2011-2012 school year, with close to 13,900, and continues to lead in reported school-based arrests. In Miami-Dade public schools, nearly 23,300 students were suspended out of school during the 2009 year, according to Department of Education data, with 49 percent of those suspensions going to black students, who made up only a quarter of total enrollment. At Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in Miami, the school Trayvon Martin was attending but was suspended from (for possessing a baggie containing marijuana residue) the night he died, Department of Education data show there were 200 suspensions in 2009, with forty percent doled out to black students, slightly more than their 35 percent of the school’s enrollment.
The fact that Martin had attended a high school in Miami struck a chord with the students Power U brought to the capitol.
Nice zombie, joke about some color issue, state your own position then let they tears flow yeah baby. I think it is kinda biggot like what you gotta say about that.
posted by clavdivs at 7:36 AM on July 30, 2013
posted by clavdivs at 7:36 AM on July 30, 2013
OH YOU WERE KIDDING!
gosh, never mind then and keep posting those "tip the scales" type Gawker article because DAMN brother.
posted by clavdivs at 7:38 AM on July 30, 2013
gosh, never mind then and keep posting those "tip the scales" type Gawker article because DAMN brother.
posted by clavdivs at 7:38 AM on July 30, 2013
What Would Real Justice For Trayvon Martin Look Like?
Researchers, activists and organizations such as Amnesty International, the American Friends Service Committee, and the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs have long documented widespread misconduct and abuse by law enforcement of the communities that are most targeted for hate violence, including people of color and LBGTQ populations. Far from preventing hate violence, police are often its main perpetrators. Because it doesn’t make us confront racism as commonplace, the hate frame won’t produce the deeper insight needed to produce authentic, not just rhetorical, racial justice in this country.posted by audi alteram partem at 12:27 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Beyond individual accountability, there is also a question of broader responsibility—the responsibility that belongs to all of us, and especially to White people. The Zimmerman verdict demands that we dig beneath the easy, comforting rhetoric of “colorblindness” and “post-racialism” to witness and address the massive violence routinely perpetrated against communities of color. That means addressing a deeply engrained and constantly reinforced belief system that indisputably connects color and criminality, not just this or that verdict.
Does anyone know how Zimmerman got out of having to explain why Rachael said she heard Trayvon say "why are you following me" but that was never in Zimmerman's accounts of what happened?
Also, was it ever brought up that walking around, looking around is pretty normal when you're on the phone or listening to music, and they said (I do remember this part) that trayvon's earbuds had been in.
posted by cashman at 12:39 PM on July 30, 2013
Also, was it ever brought up that walking around, looking around is pretty normal when you're on the phone or listening to music, and they said (I do remember this part) that trayvon's earbuds had been in.
posted by cashman at 12:39 PM on July 30, 2013
Cashman: Do you mean at trial? Since Zimmerman never took the stand he never had to explain anything.
posted by Justinian at 12:51 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:51 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
He testified in the form of his accounts to police at the station, and in his re-enactment that they showed the video of. So yes, that's what I mean. Do you happen to know the answers to those questions?
posted by cashman at 1:03 PM on July 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by cashman at 1:03 PM on July 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but because he wasn't directly taking the stand, they weren't allowed to cross-examine him, which is where a lot of those questions would have come up.
posted by corb at 1:04 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:04 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
So I guess the answer to the first question is: he took the 5th.
posted by corb at 1:05 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:05 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
No. What I'm interested in, is obviously Rachel testified that Trayvon said "Why are you following me?" but that was never in Zimmerman's accounts. How was that discrepancy addressed in court?
Also, walking around talking on the phone or listening to music is common, and it would look just like walking around looking aimlessly, and Trayvon was said to have earbuds. For anyone that was able to watch a lot of the trial (I wasn't), how was that approached in court?
posted by cashman at 1:08 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, walking around talking on the phone or listening to music is common, and it would look just like walking around looking aimlessly, and Trayvon was said to have earbuds. For anyone that was able to watch a lot of the trial (I wasn't), how was that approached in court?
posted by cashman at 1:08 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zimmerman never addressed it because he never took the stand. His lawyers addressed it by undermining Jeantel's credibility. If the jury doesn't believe Jeantel to be credible then nothing she says matters.
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on July 30, 2013
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on July 30, 2013
I wonder why the prosecution wouldn't harp on how Zimmerman clearly wasn't telling the whole story. "Why are you following me?" isn't controversial or outrageous to believe. I wish I'd been able to see more of the trial.
My point in bringing that up is the one juror brought up her rationale for why she thought certain sets of behavior were reasonable strange. And to me they aren't at all. And as Anderson Cooper mentions in that interview, Zimmerman basically testified with no cross examination, through his accounts of what happened. I'm kind of surprised that the prosecution wouldn't easily explain that trayvon was doing nothing suspicious whatsoever. I guess I see a little bit of why many thought the prosecution threw the case.
posted by cashman at 1:26 PM on July 30, 2013
My point in bringing that up is the one juror brought up her rationale for why she thought certain sets of behavior were reasonable strange. And to me they aren't at all. And as Anderson Cooper mentions in that interview, Zimmerman basically testified with no cross examination, through his accounts of what happened. I'm kind of surprised that the prosecution wouldn't easily explain that trayvon was doing nothing suspicious whatsoever. I guess I see a little bit of why many thought the prosecution threw the case.
posted by cashman at 1:26 PM on July 30, 2013
From what I understand, the prosecution only has a limited amount of time to make "general arguments" - kind of those "Sweeping statements" that would encompass a prosecutor, say, saying that Martin did nothing wrong with his behavior, the kind you're asking about. So they try to get most of the small-detail stuff out in cross examination or in questioning witnesses - to let the witnesses make those statements.
But the defense put no one on the stand to testify that Martin was in fact suspicious. They implied it strongly, but they never specifically put someone on the stand to testify, which didn't let the prosecution counter.
In that situation, the prosecution has to decide in their last closing whether or not to get into minutae "As you recall, Rachel Jeantel said.." or to make emotional appeals. "These parents have been robbed of their child" type stuff.
It looks like the prosecutor did argue that Martin was just doing an everyday thing - but I think they didn't want to get too into why someone might have been looking around funny with earbuds in, because that would give credence to the idea that looking around funny is in itself something to be suspicious of.
posted by corb at 1:34 PM on July 30, 2013
But the defense put no one on the stand to testify that Martin was in fact suspicious. They implied it strongly, but they never specifically put someone on the stand to testify, which didn't let the prosecution counter.
In that situation, the prosecution has to decide in their last closing whether or not to get into minutae "As you recall, Rachel Jeantel said.." or to make emotional appeals. "These parents have been robbed of their child" type stuff.
It looks like the prosecutor did argue that Martin was just doing an everyday thing - but I think they didn't want to get too into why someone might have been looking around funny with earbuds in, because that would give credence to the idea that looking around funny is in itself something to be suspicious of.
posted by corb at 1:34 PM on July 30, 2013
Can you quote what you were trying to link to?
None of your statement makes sense to me. If the juror got the message from george that trayvon was doing something suspicious, and that was the primary reason he engaged, and the juror believed that anyone doing those actions would have been followed by george (a ridiculous statement, but let's believe it for half a second), then it would seem of paramount importance that you make it clear that george racially profiled trayvon.
but I think they didn't want to get too into why someone might have been looking around funny with earbuds in, because that would give credence to the idea that looking around funny is in itself something to be suspicious of.
I don't even know what you're saying here. My point is that trayvon was doing nothing suspicious. Trayvon could have been going to get something out of a car, and he would have looked suspicious to george. Or standing outside. Or just circling the block. George racially profiled him (yes I know they couldn't say racially, which is just ridiculous).
The funny part is, juror b37 knows zimmerman racially profiled trayvon. But anyway, it would make sense to me to include that as part of the closing.
posted by cashman at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2013
None of your statement makes sense to me. If the juror got the message from george that trayvon was doing something suspicious, and that was the primary reason he engaged, and the juror believed that anyone doing those actions would have been followed by george (a ridiculous statement, but let's believe it for half a second), then it would seem of paramount importance that you make it clear that george racially profiled trayvon.
but I think they didn't want to get too into why someone might have been looking around funny with earbuds in, because that would give credence to the idea that looking around funny is in itself something to be suspicious of.
I don't even know what you're saying here. My point is that trayvon was doing nothing suspicious. Trayvon could have been going to get something out of a car, and he would have looked suspicious to george. Or standing outside. Or just circling the block. George racially profiled him (yes I know they couldn't say racially, which is just ridiculous).
The funny part is, juror b37 knows zimmerman racially profiled trayvon. But anyway, it would make sense to me to include that as part of the closing.
posted by cashman at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2013
If the jury doesn't believe Jeantel to be credible then nothing she says matters.
Including the "doubled back" story and Trayvon being "at" his father's house, of course.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:36 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Including the "doubled back" story and Trayvon being "at" his father's house, of course.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:36 PM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
No. What I'm interested in, is obviously Rachel testified that Trayvon said "Why are you following me?" but that was never in Zimmerman's accounts. How was that discrepancy addressed in court?
It wasn't particularly addressed, except in his closing argument O'Mara suggested that Jeantel's memory of the phone call was implausibly detailed considering that she hadn't been interviewed until three weeks after the shooting. Given that, I guess it's easy to assume we might get "Why are you following me for" (Jeantel) and "What the fuck is your problem" (Zimmerman). If Zimmerman's version is right, it would have just been a matter of Jeantel remembering "problem" as "following" which would have made sense with the context she had. I don't think the actual words really mattered... if Zimmerman had been cross-examined, he could have either insisted his version were true, or noted that Martin HAD seen him following earlier, but maintained his claim that after that he had stopped.
Jeantel is a really interesting witness, but she does come across as unbelievable at times, so it may be her exact wording was discounted. Sometimes she acts like she doesn't give a shit, she really just doesn't want to be there (she said on the witness stand that was the reason she hadn't been accurate in previous testimony). There's an interview with her by the Florida State Attorney's Office here where she starts to embellish the story (I guess) and the attorney walks her back from it (around 15:35).
But I think it was clear, and it seems like the jurors felt, that she was telling some or mostly the truth and it was important. I kind of liked her "don't give a shit" attitude, but it made her hard to read at times.
Also, walking around talking on the phone or listening to music is common, and it would look just like walking around looking aimlessly, and Trayvon was said to have earbuds. For anyone that was able to watch a lot of the trial (I wasn't), how was that approached in court?
I don't remember this being addressed particularly either, but I personally thought it may have contributed to Zimmerman's thinking he was acting odd. Zimmerman said he was in the grass in front of a house, not on the sidewalk, looking at the house, wandering between houses, in the rain. He said at one point that he thought Trayvon was saying something to him when he approached the car (but Z's windows were up). If Z had known Martin was on the phone, all of that would have looked a lot different to him.
But I agree with corb, it's not something the prosecution would have wanted to emphasize. Because most people would think that wandering aimlessly and talking to the air might be very valid reasons for someone to think a person is acting strange or on drugs. The prosecution didn't want to dilute the racial profiling argument by acknowledging other possible reasons Martin might have looked suspicious.
And the defense might not have wanted to make a huge deal of it because, after all, there is nothing wrong with talking on a hands-free phone! So they focused on the claim that he was off the sidewalk in the grass in the yard of a house that had been burgled a couple weeks before.
corb
But the defense put no one on the stand to testify that Martin was in fact suspicious. They implied it strongly, but they never specifically put someone on the stand to testify, which didn't let the prosecution counter.
Yeah but... there WAS no other witness to testify to that.
posted by torticat at 11:08 PM on July 30, 2013
It wasn't particularly addressed, except in his closing argument O'Mara suggested that Jeantel's memory of the phone call was implausibly detailed considering that she hadn't been interviewed until three weeks after the shooting. Given that, I guess it's easy to assume we might get "Why are you following me for" (Jeantel) and "What the fuck is your problem" (Zimmerman). If Zimmerman's version is right, it would have just been a matter of Jeantel remembering "problem" as "following" which would have made sense with the context she had. I don't think the actual words really mattered... if Zimmerman had been cross-examined, he could have either insisted his version were true, or noted that Martin HAD seen him following earlier, but maintained his claim that after that he had stopped.
Jeantel is a really interesting witness, but she does come across as unbelievable at times, so it may be her exact wording was discounted. Sometimes she acts like she doesn't give a shit, she really just doesn't want to be there (she said on the witness stand that was the reason she hadn't been accurate in previous testimony). There's an interview with her by the Florida State Attorney's Office here where she starts to embellish the story (I guess) and the attorney walks her back from it (around 15:35).
But I think it was clear, and it seems like the jurors felt, that she was telling some or mostly the truth and it was important. I kind of liked her "don't give a shit" attitude, but it made her hard to read at times.
Also, walking around talking on the phone or listening to music is common, and it would look just like walking around looking aimlessly, and Trayvon was said to have earbuds. For anyone that was able to watch a lot of the trial (I wasn't), how was that approached in court?
I don't remember this being addressed particularly either, but I personally thought it may have contributed to Zimmerman's thinking he was acting odd. Zimmerman said he was in the grass in front of a house, not on the sidewalk, looking at the house, wandering between houses, in the rain. He said at one point that he thought Trayvon was saying something to him when he approached the car (but Z's windows were up). If Z had known Martin was on the phone, all of that would have looked a lot different to him.
But I agree with corb, it's not something the prosecution would have wanted to emphasize. Because most people would think that wandering aimlessly and talking to the air might be very valid reasons for someone to think a person is acting strange or on drugs. The prosecution didn't want to dilute the racial profiling argument by acknowledging other possible reasons Martin might have looked suspicious.
And the defense might not have wanted to make a huge deal of it because, after all, there is nothing wrong with talking on a hands-free phone! So they focused on the claim that he was off the sidewalk in the grass in the yard of a house that had been burgled a couple weeks before.
corb
But the defense put no one on the stand to testify that Martin was in fact suspicious. They implied it strongly, but they never specifically put someone on the stand to testify, which didn't let the prosecution counter.
Yeah but... there WAS no other witness to testify to that.
posted by torticat at 11:08 PM on July 30, 2013
I guess the prosecution guessed wrong then. Because that juror thought zimmerman was right to profile martin because he was acting strange. There was nothing strange about it. People talk on the phone all the time outside in residences in florida. I've seen it. I've done it. It's still sad to me (and I saw this part of the trial) that none of zimmerman's blood or anything was found on trayvon's palms and so much of the information shows that things couldn't have happened the way zimmerman says, but zimmerman got to testify without cross examination through his statements to police.
Then it's like, prove zimmerman had a depraved mind but you're not allowed to reference any of the previous incidents that suggest he had a depraved mind. Yet that woman got to testify about previous incidents when it helped george. Then you have zimmerman joking about hoodies while locked up. It's just a messed up case all around. If there is a hell, OJ and Zimmerman will see each other there hopefully. On to the next black male shot for living while black.
posted by cashman at 8:14 AM on July 31, 2013 [3 favorites]
Then it's like, prove zimmerman had a depraved mind but you're not allowed to reference any of the previous incidents that suggest he had a depraved mind. Yet that woman got to testify about previous incidents when it helped george. Then you have zimmerman joking about hoodies while locked up. It's just a messed up case all around. If there is a hell, OJ and Zimmerman will see each other there hopefully. On to the next black male shot for living while black.
posted by cashman at 8:14 AM on July 31, 2013 [3 favorites]
An Armed George Zimmerman Caught Speeding in Texas
posted by palomar at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by palomar at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
You know, this thread is so long that this might have been answered before(and in fact, so long that there is no internet capable device i use which doesn't heavily lag out upon loading it)... But can someone really quickly explain to me exactly how he got away with not testifying when he was basically one of the only witnesses? Is this actually a 5th amendment thing? cleaver legal weaseling on the part of his lawyers? i seriously want to know why the prosecution couldn't call him and drill in to some of his BS here.
posted by emptythought at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2013
posted by emptythought at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2013
5th Amendment thing. A defendant cannot be forced to testify. This is a good thing.
posted by Justinian at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
You know, this thread is so long that this might have been answered before... But can someone really quickly explain to me exactly how he got away with not testifying when he was basically one of the only witnesses? Is this actually a 5th amendment thing? cleaver legal weaseling on the part of his lawyers? i seriously want to know why the prosecution couldn't call him and drill in to some of his BS here.
The prosecution cannot call the defendant as a witness, because of the Fifth Amendment. They also aren't allowed to comment on the Defendant's decision not to testify or ask the jury to draw the inference that they are guilty from that fact.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:51 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
The prosecution cannot call the defendant as a witness, because of the Fifth Amendment. They also aren't allowed to comment on the Defendant's decision not to testify or ask the jury to draw the inference that they are guilty from that fact.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:51 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
An Armed George Zimmerman Caught Speeding in Texas
Wow. Dude is totally going to kill again. He's that stupid.
posted by Artw at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2013
Wow. Dude is totally going to kill again. He's that stupid.
posted by Artw at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2013
I can only hope that no one else is injured, and whoever he "stands his ground" against next is armed, and defends themselves.
Excellent comment from there(trying not to do the "bring shitty comments over" thing, but it's a good one!):
Excellent comment from there(trying not to do the "bring shitty comments over" thing, but it's a good one!):
1. Zimmerman showed the officer he was packing heat by opening up his glove compartment and revealing a gun.posted by emptythought at 2:40 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
2. "[G]o ahead and shut your glove compartment and don’t play with your firearm, ok?"
3. the weapon in Zimmerman's possession was initially strapped to his body. It was the police officer who instructed Zimmerman to put it in the glove compartment.
He sure playing around with his gun even around cops and I pray to god he continues to. GO! GEORGE!
Life is so strange sometimes.
posted by cashman at 2:47 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 2:47 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
The way he was asking if the cop recognized him... Like he was hoping for a fucking medal or something. Sigh...
posted by Artw at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:56 PM on July 31, 2013 [6 favorites]
Interesting thought experiment: what would Zimmerman have done if Martin had revealed that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm on his person?
posted by jaduncan at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2013
posted by jaduncan at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2013
I'm honestly kinda amazed the cop didn't try and make his day harder when he tried the "don't you know who i AM?" routine.
From what i've seen, heard, etc cops really don't like that one and aren't going to buy it unless you're like.. the mayors son and it's a small town or something, and even then i've only seen that shit on TV shows.
It just blows my goddamn mind that the immediate response to that wasn't "No? But i bet they can figure that out downtown".
posted by emptythought at 3:40 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
From what i've seen, heard, etc cops really don't like that one and aren't going to buy it unless you're like.. the mayors son and it's a small town or something, and even then i've only seen that shit on TV shows.
It just blows my goddamn mind that the immediate response to that wasn't "No? But i bet they can figure that out downtown".
posted by emptythought at 3:40 PM on July 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
don't you know who i am?
when i was in highschool a snotty classmate tried that on a cop (her parents owned a couple of businesses in town). yeah they didn't care.
posted by camdan at 4:43 PM on July 31, 2013
when i was in highschool a snotty classmate tried that on a cop (her parents owned a couple of businesses in town). yeah they didn't care.
posted by camdan at 4:43 PM on July 31, 2013
don't you know who i am?
This is Zimmerman's raisin-detre.. It got him out of jail for hitting a cop. Got him out of jail for beating up a girlfriend. Got him out of jail for killing a black kid due to his own culpable negligence...
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 PM on July 31, 2013 [3 favorites]
This is Zimmerman's raisin-detre.. It got him out of jail for hitting a cop. Got him out of jail for beating up a girlfriend. Got him out of jail for killing a black kid due to his own culpable negligence...
posted by mikelieman at 5:01 PM on July 31, 2013 [3 favorites]
And I say that to say that as scary as people think black males are, black males are conditioned to be ten times more afraid of everyone else. We’re conditioned to be afraid of going to certain parts of the country, afraid of people with certain political views, afraid of police officers, and sometimes even afraid of other black and Latino males. The most sickening thing about this whole trial has been the deliberate campaign to rob Trayvon of his right to be afraid. I know I would have been.
-What I want you to know about being a young black man in America.
posted by cairdeas at 11:19 PM on July 31, 2013 [15 favorites]
In other Florida justice news: Jesus Christ, The Death Penalty, And Florida
posted by homunculus at 11:33 AM on August 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 11:33 AM on August 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Life is so strange sometimes.
That much is true.
Why did the cop identify him as a "black male"? How bizarre.
Artw, I don't think Zimmerman's comment meant "Do you know who I AM??" It sounded like the cop said "Where are you headed" and Zimmerman assumed he'd pulled him over because of who he was, and then realized that maybe wasn't the case and said "you didn't see my name?" to clear that up.
The cop told him "calm down, you're good," and that he'd been pulled over for speeding. I don't think cops try to reassure people who are acting like arrogant assholes.
posted by torticat at 8:44 PM on August 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
That much is true.
Why did the cop identify him as a "black male"? How bizarre.
Artw, I don't think Zimmerman's comment meant "Do you know who I AM??" It sounded like the cop said "Where are you headed" and Zimmerman assumed he'd pulled him over because of who he was, and then realized that maybe wasn't the case and said "you didn't see my name?" to clear that up.
The cop told him "calm down, you're good," and that he'd been pulled over for speeding. I don't think cops try to reassure people who are acting like arrogant assholes.
posted by torticat at 8:44 PM on August 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
Florida Sheriff: Officers Who Shot Unarmed Black Man In His Driveway Followed ‘Standard Protocols’
posted by homunculus at 10:08 PM on August 1, 2013
posted by homunculus at 10:08 PM on August 1, 2013
I love how people can justify anything if they're following standard protocols.
posted by empath at 10:18 PM on August 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 10:18 PM on August 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
I love how people can justify anything if they're following standard protocols.
It sounds so much more modern than the previous "just following orders" formulation.
posted by jaduncan at 3:32 PM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
It sounds so much more modern than the previous "just following orders" formulation.
posted by jaduncan at 3:32 PM on August 2, 2013 [3 favorites]
the previous "just following orders" formulation
Well you know orders generally come from individual commanders, and it's impossible to completely weed out people who maybe shouldn't have attained their positions of authority. As was established (on our own principles) at Nuremberg, it makes sense to require people to question orders that seem morally suspect. They might have come from some guy obsessed with his precious bodily fluids.
But procedures, now those are another thing. They don't come from a single possibly deranged person, they come from a group where there are checks and balances and protocols to assure that mistakes are found and a sensible consensus emerges. So it's a much different thing to question a procedure, written down and published with review and probably even available to you when you took the job.
That's why when the book says to raid the no-kill animal shelter with drawn semiauto weapons to make sure a baby deer doesn't get away, you do as it says.
posted by localroger at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well you know orders generally come from individual commanders, and it's impossible to completely weed out people who maybe shouldn't have attained their positions of authority. As was established (on our own principles) at Nuremberg, it makes sense to require people to question orders that seem morally suspect. They might have come from some guy obsessed with his precious bodily fluids.
But procedures, now those are another thing. They don't come from a single possibly deranged person, they come from a group where there are checks and balances and protocols to assure that mistakes are found and a sensible consensus emerges. So it's a much different thing to question a procedure, written down and published with review and probably even available to you when you took the job.
That's why when the book says to raid the no-kill animal shelter with drawn semiauto weapons to make sure a baby deer doesn't get away, you do as it says.
posted by localroger at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2013 [4 favorites]
But procedures, now those are another thing.
the activity itself isn't procedure, but how officers explain their shootings is. if a suspect poses a risk of causing serious bodily harm, then you can shoot him, that's the law and cops know it. so cops know the magic language to use after a shooting: the suspect lunged and was holding a suspicious object. we don't know what actually happened. you'll never hear a police officer say that he shot the dude because he was nervous or jumpy. no one is going to believe the thuggish character they arrested (if he lives), if he dies the question is moot, and either way there is likely no culpability.
a similar trend is happening with police shooting pet dogs, with the same magic words used: the dog lunged, so the police officer had to shoot. dog shootings have been happening with such frequency that the impression is that the "procedure" is "hey! there's a dog, that means i get to shoot it!". (more likely the cop just takes out the dog because they don't want to worry about it biting them after they put its owner in cuffs).
It's important to remember that police are public servants, and that we pay their salaries. their work is thankless and stressful, and there is a fine line between using legitimate force, making a mistake or straight up being trigger happy. oversight of police shootings should not just be handled administratively. of course if you're conducting a neighborhood watch there is even less oversight, so i guess the point here is that people shouldn't be able to get away with killing people with malicious intent simply because they know the right story to tell.
posted by camdan at 4:54 PM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
the activity itself isn't procedure, but how officers explain their shootings is. if a suspect poses a risk of causing serious bodily harm, then you can shoot him, that's the law and cops know it. so cops know the magic language to use after a shooting: the suspect lunged and was holding a suspicious object. we don't know what actually happened. you'll never hear a police officer say that he shot the dude because he was nervous or jumpy. no one is going to believe the thuggish character they arrested (if he lives), if he dies the question is moot, and either way there is likely no culpability.
a similar trend is happening with police shooting pet dogs, with the same magic words used: the dog lunged, so the police officer had to shoot. dog shootings have been happening with such frequency that the impression is that the "procedure" is "hey! there's a dog, that means i get to shoot it!". (more likely the cop just takes out the dog because they don't want to worry about it biting them after they put its owner in cuffs).
It's important to remember that police are public servants, and that we pay their salaries. their work is thankless and stressful, and there is a fine line between using legitimate force, making a mistake or straight up being trigger happy. oversight of police shootings should not just be handled administratively. of course if you're conducting a neighborhood watch there is even less oversight, so i guess the point here is that people shouldn't be able to get away with killing people with malicious intent simply because they know the right story to tell.
posted by camdan at 4:54 PM on August 2, 2013 [8 favorites]
The exact same language that the people on the customer service line to tell you that, no, sorry, it's not our policy to issue refunds, and the same language that a bank uses when they steal everything from someone's house to tell you that no, they aren't going to give you their stuff back.
posted by empath at 4:13 AM on August 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 4:13 AM on August 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
George Zimmerman's Biggest Defender: A Racist With a Criminal Past
In April 2012, two days before George Zimmerman was arrested for the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, he huddled with a fellow neighborhood watch volunteer, Frank Taaffe. According to Taaffe, who disclosed the meeting on Fox News, Zimmerman asked him to share "several talking points" with the media. Taaffe obliged. Indeed, as Zimmerman's legal drama unfolded over the next year and a half, Taaffe emerged as his most visible and outspoken defender. He gave hundreds of interviews to media outlets, ranging from the New York Times to Fox News to CNN, and made near-daily appearances on cable news shows during Zimmerman's trial.posted by zombieflanders at 6:20 AM on August 8, 2013 [11 favorites]
Taaffe used this platform to cast Martin as a drug-addled hoodlum and Zimmerman as a community-minded do-gooder ("the best neighbor you would want to have") who had every reason to suspect the black teen was up to mischief. He also railed against Zimmerman's critics, whom he accused of staging a witch hunt. "It's really sad that he has already been convicted in the public media and has already been sentenced to the gas chamber," he lamented in an interview with NBC's Miami affiliate last year.
Taaffe was hardly the ideal person to be weighing in on a case suffused with racial angst—or commenting on criminal-justice matters, period. A Mother Jones investigation has found that the 56-year-old New York native has a lengthy criminal record that includes charges of domestic violence and burglary, and a history of airing virulently racist views. Just last Sunday, he appeared on The White Voice, a weekly podcast hosted by a man named Joe Adams, who has deep, long-standing ties to white-power groups and has authored a manual called Save The White People Handbook. (Sample quote: "A mutt makes a great pet and a mulatto makes a great slave.")
During a previous White Voice appearance, on July 27, Taaffe argued that whites and blacks have no business mingling. ("They don't want to be with us and we don't want to be with them.") Taaffe also opined that if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, he was justified in doing so because "young black males" had burglarized homes in their neighborhood. "What if I—a middle-aged white man—wore a hoodie and went through Trayvon Martin's neighborhood?" he asked defiantly. Adams replied that "no sane white person" would dare walk down their "local Marcus Garvey Boulevard."
God damn, the more i hear and see the more i just think if you aren't white, you gotta get the fuck out of florida as fast as you can. Like sell everything of value you can get rid of and buy a greyhound ticket and get the fuck out of dodge.
Why? This.
The cops taze a kid, who is of course not white for running after they tried to catch him tagging. They're actually high fiving and broing down and joking about how his ass clenched up when they were shocking him after they had killed him and he was laying dead on the ground. All smiles and laughter like some sketch comedy show bit.
This kind of shit runs deep down there. Everything i saw in that video seriously reminded me of interviews in eyes on the prize type videos. I mean, fuck.
posted by emptythought at 12:56 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
Why? This.
The cops taze a kid, who is of course not white for running after they tried to catch him tagging. They're actually high fiving and broing down and joking about how his ass clenched up when they were shocking him after they had killed him and he was laying dead on the ground. All smiles and laughter like some sketch comedy show bit.
This kind of shit runs deep down there. Everything i saw in that video seriously reminded me of interviews in eyes on the prize type videos. I mean, fuck.
posted by emptythought at 12:56 AM on August 12, 2013 [2 favorites]
State attorney in Florida: Stand Your Ground 'solved a problem we didn't have'
Representative Matt Gaetz tells the NYT that the Dream Defenders are protesting for the sake of protesting, and he says, they don't know much:posted by zombieflanders at 4:27 PM on August 12, 2013 [1 favorite]"I think you have protesters in the Capitol today who are protesting without a whole lot of knowledge about the fact patterns associated with Stand Your Ground."But the Dream Defenders are not the only ones in Florida calling for change. Just last week, I bumped into an interview with Florida State Attorney Willie Meggs, a Democrat from the generally Republican Panhandle. First elected in 1984, Meggs began prosecuting cases in Florida long before the Stand Your Ground was created. Since then, he has called it the "dumbest law ever put on the books." Last month, he talked to Capital Scoop, of the Tallahassee Democrat, and added this:What the legislature did with the Stand Your Ground law is they solved a problem that we didn’t have and created some problems we don’t need. We were not having any problems with self-defense issues prior to the enactment of this Stand Your Ground law. . .
We were just not having a problem. We just were not having a problem.
The cops taze a kid, who is of course not white for running after they tried to catch him tagging.
Some background: Miami Police Tase Teenage Graffiti Artist To Death
posted by homunculus at 4:34 PM on August 12, 2013
Some background: Miami Police Tase Teenage Graffiti Artist To Death
posted by homunculus at 4:34 PM on August 12, 2013
The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and . . . neighborhood watch--regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It's like burning down a house to rid it of mice.Sort of a big deal decision today and apropos. Quote is from the decision not the article.
posted by jessamyn at 4:38 PM on August 12, 2013 [5 favorites]
« Older Changing the Creepy Guy Narrative | First! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ShawnStruck at 11:55 PM on July 13, 2013 [29 favorites]