quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Really I'm asserting that someone is "to blame" whenever we can rightly say to them, "You made the wrong decision and something bad happened as a result."
I think that, to be able to identify something as "the wrong decision" we need to assess the morality of the decision itself, not its results.
To illustrate, that's why a woman walking down a dark alley did not invite rape and is not to blame if she is raped. The results are irrelevant to the fact that the decision itself was not "wrong." Morally, she should be able to walk down an alley and not fear rape. The fact that fearing it may be prudent due to some kind of pragmatic risk assessment is immaterial.
You may even be able to legitimately say she wasn't being as cautious as she should have been. But that's a separate criticism. To imply any degree of blame on her is categorically wrong.
Do you agree with me here?
Now, similarly, I think that, for moral purposes, everybody with a concealed carry license should have the right to walk down the street with a gun, and to talk to people, etc. And the simple fact that they do these things while carrying a gun doesn't automatically attribute any unique moral responsibility upon them.
If you disagree, then that's the real source of the disagreement, right? Certainly Rakeesh has stated clearly that he disagrees with me on this.
So Rakeesh, in essence, thinks that Zimmerman has already done something wrong by carrying a gun. So then, if his carrying a gun leads to something worse, like someone being killed, then in Rakeesh's mind he is (at least partially) culpable. But if Rakeesh believed that it was totally moral to carry a gun, then culpability wouldn't follow.
Destineer: Is your point (the first one in your 2 part list) specifically that you think: It is wrong to follow someone you suspect may be doing something criminal? So if, after following someone, something else bad comes of it, that makes you culpable?
Because otherwise I don't see how you're defining it as a "bad decision."
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Probably we'd need the caveat that the particular bad result that occurred needed to be foreseeable as well, to rule out weird cases.
Yeah, and you can't hand-wave this away. How you define "foreseeable" is a hugely integral part of the moral calculus you're proposing. The same way "wrong decision" is above.
(Edit: Destineer, your post at the end of the last page slipped in before this one like a ninja, in case it isn't obvious)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I was thinking a bit about rape examples like that this morning, then for some reason it slipped my mind.
Anyway, I think there are two things going on in your examples. One is that we don't normally blame people, morally, for the harm done to them as a result of relatively innocent mistakes. We normally blame people for bringing about harm to others. That seems right to me. The second thing is that there's quite a bit of social pressure to deny that a woman is ever morally to blame for something that occurred as a result of sexual violence. That's a good rule to follow in almost all cases, but I don't think it's universally true.
So, I would say that while the woman in your first example is not to blame for the harm done to her, the woman in the second example may be to blame to some small extent for the attacker's death.
BUT
The way we think about your second case should also be influenced by the chances that something equally bad or worse would've happened, whether or not she'd gone down the dark alley. If the guy is hanging out there waiting for any old victim, probably he would have gotten someone eventually (maybe the next night). So it's very likely that his death is the best possible outcome of the situation where he's lying in wait and the gun-packing woman is thinking about whether to go down the dark alley. In that case, she would actually be bringing about a better outcome than what would've happened if she'd made the wiser choice, and so we'd be wrong to blame her.
Interesting!
I was not anticipating this response. Thanks!
I think that everything after your "BUT" is really interesting but ultimately looks sort of like moral gymnastics to me. I'm doing my own gymnastics, so it's not necessary for me.
So I'm going to focus on the first part of your post. If you want me to do otherwise, just say the word.
I think you're right that people often perceive a qualitative difference between harm our actions bring on ourselves vs. harm our actions bring on others. Do you think that's right, though? Why?
For example: what if you convince your friend to accompany you down a dark alley, and then they get raped. Now are you responsible, since the rape didn't happen to you?
I don't think that this distinction is actually valuable.
As far as this:
quote:The second thing is that there's quite a bit of social pressure to deny that a woman is ever morally to blame for something that occurred as a result of sexual violence. That's a good rule to follow in almost all cases, but I don't think it's universally true.
That's interesting.
I think, as I alluded earlier, that there's a distinction between assigning moral blame and observing that someone made a mistake in risk assessment or similar.
I stand by my statement that assigning any moral blame to a victim of rape is categorically wrong. But I agree with you insofar as, sometimes people are so concerned about avoiding any resemblance of this, that they fail to point out when someone made a legitimate mistake in risk assessment.
Huge difference, though. If you really think they may sometimes share some blame, then I strongly disagree.
So, to recap:
1: I don't agree that the other people/self distinction is morally very important.
2: I don't agree that sometimes the victim really is to blame for what someone else did to them.
Therefore, in my examples, I don't think the second woman is responsible for the would-be rapists death. End of story.
At which point do you disagree?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You may even be able to legitimately say she wasn't being as cautious as she should have been. But that's a separate criticism. To imply any degree of blame on her is categorically wrong.
Do you agree with me here?
Does that cut with people who knowingly endanger themselves? How about if that particular ally was "Rape alley", where there had been a rape every single night all month, and she knew it. And decided to march into the face of danger anyway?
I'm not saying myself either way, just asking how far that principal can be pushed.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the "wrong decision" is just the one that's more likely to lead to bad outcomes, compared with the alternatives. That was all I meant.
When you have a gun, obviously the potential outcomes change and which decisions are wrong can change as well, as a result.
quote: Destineer: Is your point (the first one in your 2 part list) specifically that you think: It is wrong to follow someone you suspect may be doing something criminal? So if, after following someone, something else bad comes of it, that makes you culpable?
I think it's generally unwise to put yourself in a situation you're not trained to handle. It might have been worth it if Martin appeared to be an immediate physical danger to anyone, but there was no reason for Zimmerman to think that.
My point of view is that cops are trained to do what they do, civilians aren't, and when a civilian forgets this it's almost always a mistake.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point of view is that cops are trained to do what they do, civilians aren't, and when a civilian forgets this it's almost always a mistake.
Trained, equipped (with nonlethal alternatives), given the proxy of the people to enforce the laws, have the ability to look up people's criminal histories, have access to back up, are held to different level of responsibility, have to pass extensive background and psych evaluations, regular drug test, etc, ad nausium.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: To me, the "wrong decision" is just the one that's more likely to lead to bad outcomes, compared with the alternatives. That was all I meant.
How do you determine this likelihood?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think answering a couple of your questions will make clear where we disagree.
quote: I think you're right that people often perceive a qualitative difference between harm our actions bring on ourselves vs. harm our actions bring on others. Do you think that's right, though? Why?
Well, I think blame and guilt are closely related attitudes (guilt is essentially blaming yourself for something). I also don't think it normally makes sense to feel guilty about stuff you do to yourself. You may regret it, but that's not the same as guilt. For example, if I attempt suicide I shouldn't feel guilty, but if I attempt murder I should. (This is all complicated by the fact that you may have family who love you, and so you should feel guilty about trying to leave e.g. your orphaned kids behind in the realistic version of the example.)
quote: For example: what if you convince your friend to accompany you down a dark alley, and then they get raped. Now are you responsible, since the rape didn't happen to you?
I would think anyone who didn't feel guilty, or blame themselves a bit in the situation you describe, would be pretty sick.
Obviously I disagree with your #1 at the end of the post. Regarding the other point:
quote: 2: I don't agree that sometimes the victim really is to blame for what someone else did to them.
Even if the victim was gloating about banging the attacker's spouse or something? Not even a little bit blameworthy in a case like that?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you're right that people often perceive a qualitative difference between harm our actions bring on ourselves vs. harm our actions bring on others. Do you think that's right, though? Why?
Well, I think blame and guilt are closely related attitudes (guilt is essentially blaming yourself for something). I also don't think it normally makes sense to feel guilty about stuff you do to yourself. You may regret it, but that's not the same as guilt. For example, if I attempt suicide I shouldn't feel guilty, but if I attempt murder I should. (This is all complicated by the fact that you may have family who love you, and so you should feel guilty about trying to leave e.g. your orphaned kids behind in the realistic version of the example.)
You're conflating in stuff you do to yourself intentionally.
People often feel guilty about things they do that, unforeseen by them, then causally lead to something bad. Even if that bad thing only effects them, and no one else.
So again, how is that different?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: For example: what if you convince your friend to accompany you down a dark alley, and then they get raped. Now are you responsible, since the rape didn't happen to you?
I would think anyone who didn't feel guilty, or blame themselves a bit in the situation you describe, would be pretty sick.
Really?
I'd think that's the kind of situation where most people would irrationally blame themselves, and then people would try to comfort them by saying "You couldn't have known, don't blame yourself," etc.
I'm confused. You think you would be responsible for the rape? But then you wouldn't, if the rape had happened to you instead of your friend?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: 2: I don't agree that sometimes the victim really is to blame for what someone else did to them.
Even if the victim was gloating about banging the attacker's spouse or something? Not even a little bit blameworthy in a case like that?
Yeah, this is a good one!
My answer comes in two parts.
Generally, although I think the Libertarian "Non-Aggression Principle" is so vague and poorly defined (even by them!) as to be meaningless, I do think that the aggressor in a situation is the one morally culpable for the results. Self-defense/retaliation is therefore morally acceptable, in my eyes.
Because I want society to be as open and liberal as possible, I also agree with the US tradition of Free Speech, and I dislike the philosophy behind some of the limitations on this tradition that have been introduced, like "fighting words."
The conflux of these two ideas leads me to draw a pretty specific distinction between being an aggressor with words versus a physical aggressor.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Rakeesh, in essence, thinks that Zimmerman has already done something wrong by carrying a gun. So then, if his carrying a gun leads to something worse, like someone being killed, then in Rakeesh's mind he is (at least partially) culpable. But if Rakeesh believed that it was totally moral to carry a gun, then culpability wouldn't follow.
This is not, in fact, what I believe. I don't simply believe that carrying a gun is wrong. I also don't think I've said anything to that effect. I have said, repeatedly, that carrying a gun just to be carrying a gun in case something bad happens, is a bad, unwise decision. People all over the country, all the time, go about their lives peacefully and hardly ever need to even defend themselves with violence, much less be able to put hands on lethal force, just in their daily lives.
Therefore, a responsible person has to ask the question, which is more likely on a day that looks to be completely ordinary: that THIS will be the day they need to defend themselves with violence, or that on this day they might be careless for a few minutes or become very angry for a few minutes, or get into a heated personal nonviolent argument with a spouse or coworker or lover, or have a few beers?
Which of these is more likely? I would love someone defending the right to carry a concealed weapon just for its own sake tell me that.
But this is *only* for people who want a gun simply because 'the world is dangerous' or something. Not the people who live in, say, high crime neighborhoods, or who have violent spouses or family members, or who must carry large amounts of cash or other valuables, so on and so forth.
One party having a gun also brings with it an appreciable rise in the risk in any number of situations, such as above in my either/or question, and not only does that risk not exist if the gun isn't there, there's no additional harm if the gun isn't there. Whereas on the other end of things, even having a gun in the extremely unlikely event we would say it's needed, probably, even then isn't a guarantee of safety-only a very high likelihood of having access to lethal force.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're conflating in stuff you do to yourself intentionally.
People often feel guilty about things they do that, unforeseen by them, then causally lead to something bad. Even if that bad thing only effects them, and no one else.
So again, how is that different?
You can certainly feel guilty about stuff you do to other people intentionally. So there's one difference.
I really do dispute whether guilt is ever appropriate when you yourself are the only one harmed. Regret, yes. Guilt, I don't think so.
quote:I'd think that's the kind of situation where most people would irrationally blame themselves, and then people would try to comfort them by saying "You couldn't have known, don't blame yourself," etc.
But we're talking about cases where you could have known, and should at least have known about the risk--by analogy with Zimmerman, who should have known that following Martin involved a risk of violent confrontation.
quote: I'm confused. You think you would be responsible for the rape? But then you wouldn't, if the rape had happened to you instead of your friend?
Well, I would probably say that in both cases you're responsible (partly) for what happened, but only blameworthy when the harm is done to someone else.
quote: Generally, although I think the Libertarian "Non-Aggression Principle" is so vague and poorly defined (even by them!) as to be meaningless, I do think that the aggressor in a situation is the one morally culpable for the results. Self-defense/retaliation is therefore morally acceptable, in my eyes.
Because I want society to be as open and liberal as possible, I also agree with the US tradition of Free Speech, and I dislike the philosophy behind some of the limitations on this tradition that have been introduced, like "fighting words."
The conflux of these two ideas leads me to draw a pretty specific distinction between being an aggressor with words versus a physical aggressor.
As a matter of legal responsibility, I mostly agree with you. As a matter of moral responsibility, I disagree.
The First Amendment doesn't make it morally OK to tell a malicious lie. Nor does it make it morally OK to provoke an attack.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the woman, loaded for bear, decides to walk down "rape ally" and, instead of shooting the rapist she anticipated, kills an innocent bystander instead?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we're talking about cases where you could have known, and should at least have known about the risk--by analogy with Zimmerman, who should have known that following Martin involved a risk of violent confrontation.
This is a crux of the issue, for me. If we're not going to say it's bad Zimmerman 'investigated' Martin's 'suspicious behavior' while he was armed, then we also have to say that it isn't a bad thing to enter what could be a heated dispute with the potential to engage in lethal violence.
This is precisely why, for people in ordinary situations (such as grocery shopping), it's better not to be armed. You can't shoot someone, be it an attacker of bystander or even accidentally yourself, with a gun you don't have-and it's not reasonable to assume that every single possible physical confrontation might result in a need for lethal violence, and then bring that capability even with its other many risks.
That's why it's important we purge ourselves as a society of this dangerous, almost entirely groundless fear that suggests it might be reasonable to come loaded for bear...even if you're only at the damn zoo. If we're going to seriously talk risks, then we have to talk about all of the risks.
I have much, much, much less concern towards gun ownership in the home or at the range, or concealed gun ownership for people with actual risk factors aside from just being a human being. I don't really know why, but there is an attitude in this country that it's reasonable to have the tools at hand in everyday life to deal with the absolute worst case scenario , even when simply possessing those tools carries their own risk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I have much, much, much less concern towards gun ownership in the home or at the range, or concealed gun ownership for people with actual risk factors aside from just being a human being. I don't really know why, but there is an attitude in this country that it's reasonable to have the tools at hand in everyday life to deal with the absolute worst case scenario , even when simply possessing those tools carries their own risk.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is a raping bear? Thanks for the nightmares boots!
Wait, pepper spray works on bears, whew, that was close.
My apologies."Loaded for bear" is an idiom. It means prepared for or even looking for trouble. Heavily armed as if one might expect to have to fight a bear. I didn't realize it might be an unfamilair phrase.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Zimmerman's side has been proven right, Martin's side has been proven wrong. It's over.
quote:This quote goes up into my "hmm, really?" area too.
Yes, really. There's lots of hand-wringing and there can be lots of political debate about what the role of neighbourhood watch should be, and whether we should or shouldn't gun-control, and there's lots of philosophical arguing about how we should define 'blame' -- but there's hardly any *fact* that remains in real dispute, and all the facts went to the side of Zimmerman.
Is there any factual question that you believe has not been resolved to your satisfaction?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? The question of who started the altercation has been unequivocally answered? I've been following the news of this case fairly closely, and I'm surprised I missed that!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only evidence I've seen come out in Zimmerman's favor is that he had some superficial wounds. He had a scratch on the back of his head with a bit of blood running from it. So what? Head wounds bleed like crazy. My husband has had bloodier wounds from shaving his head. Zimmerman had a broken nose. So what? A broken nose is rarely a life threaten injury. Neither is a black eye. Unless there is medical evidence of a brain trauma, those wounds don't indicate that Zimmerman's life was in danger. I broke by nose once by walking into a glass wall. It swelled up like a balloon and I had two black eyes. It was embarrassing but no where near a life threatening emergency.
I've been in exactly one physical fight in my life. I was 13 years old and weighed 65 lbs. I was attacked by two girls in P.E. who were each at least twice my size. I hit one of the girls once, a palm strike to the nose and broke it. It bleed so much she had to go to the hospital to have it cauterized. What some of you seem to be saying is that, given those details, you would have been convinced it was justified self defense if she'd pulled out a gun and shot me. That's freakin' insane.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Really? The question of who started the altercation has been unequivocally answered? I've been following the news of this case fairly closely, and I'm surprised I missed that!
This is what all the "stand your ground" and "legitimate self defense" promoters seems to forget, the law applies to both parties. Martin had a legal right to self defense. It doesn't matter whether or not Martin was beating Zimmerman if Zimmerman started the fight.
Martin was not committing any crime and was in a place he had a legal right to be. If Zimmerman got out of his car and started chasing Martin (which is strongly indicated by the 911 tapes) that constitutes assault. Martin had legitimate reason to fear an imminent violent attack from Zimmerman and the right to defend himself from that attack. If some stranger has been following you and starts chasing you, you don't have to wait until they start beating you or shooting to defend yourself.
Once Zimmerman started chasing Martin, the "stand your ground law" no longer applied to him. He was the aggressor and unless he "withdrew from physical contact with the assailant and indicated clearly to the assailant that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continued or resumed the use of force."**, it wasn't self defense.
Zimmerman claims this is what he did but at this point we have only his word for it. That shouldn't be good enough. When someone with a gun stalks an innocent person and then shoots them, their "word for it" shouldn't hold any weight. Martin won't ever get the chance to tell his side of the story. Unless there is physical evidence to support his claim that he retreated and was crying for help, I won't believe Zimmerman was not the aggressor.
A good forensics team should have been able to gather evidence about the chase and the course of the fight from the crime scene but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the police utterly fumbled on it.
It is important to note that the evidence is being given to the media by the defense team. The prosecution is required to turn over all the evidence to the defense. We have only the parts the defense has turned over to the media and those are certainly the pieces that are most favorable to their client. The evidence that hasn't been released may tell more than that which has.
This case really needs to go to trial so that all the evidence can be scene. The rush to judge Zimmerman either innocent or guilt based on "hear say" (which is all any of us have), is not justice.
**wording taken from Florida law
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just seen the news reports about the changes in the eyewitness accounts. Given what's known about memory and the extra-ordinarily poor reliability of eyewitness accounts, this is not at all surprising. Given all the media attention this case has seen, I think there isn't a chance in a million of anyone giving a reliable eyewitness account of what happened. Presuming the case goes to trial and eyewitness testimonies are given, I suspect the testimony of memory experts will be prominently featured.
The strange thing is that it's highly likely that even Zimmerman (maybe especially Zimmerman) doesn't accurately remember what happened. No matter what, it was clearly an intense emotional situation that escalated out of control. He's clearly rethought the events over and over, modifying the stored memory each time. It would not be at all surprising if there is very little correlation between the way he remembers it happening and what actually happened.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thing I've noticed, according to the Coroner's report there was a "quarter inch by half inch abrasion on Martin's left fourth finger. That is being reported all over the web as "bloody knuckles". Talk about biased reporting.
Perhaps someone who is more familiar with fist fighting can comment, but it just doesn't seem that likely to me that such an injury, affecting only the left fourth finger, would have happened from hitting someone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as my knowledge goes, these things are highly unpredictable. That is part of the problem, that injuries -can- be life threatening from fist fights, but also can be so very superficial as to appear non-existent and there really isn't a consistent rule of thumb for analysis
If we are not able to determine who started the physical altercation, the simple fact that Martin was striking Zimmerman seems likely to lead to a justification of the shooting. Legally speaking that is. Morally speaking, I feel Zimmerman was playing with fire, and Martin got burned.
Yes, fist fights happen all the time where no one sustains permanent injury, but just google "killed in fist fight" to get an idea how often it -does- happen. I can see how legally if there is a chance of death resulting from someone's action then that level of self defense is warranted.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we are not able to determine who started the physical altercation, the simple fact that Martin was striking Zimmerman seems likely to lead to a justification of the shooting.
If a person can strap on a firearm, follow and chase anyone they think is acting suspicious, start a fight with them and kill them and get off scott free just because no one saw who started the fight, something is horribly horribly wrong.
I have no idea where the burden of proof lies in the this case. Historically, the person claiming self defense has had the burden of proof. I understand that "stand your ground laws" shift that burden to the prosecution but I have no idea how far. If all the killer has to do is say "self defense", before society has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it wasn't, that's legalizing murder.
If this is what stand your ground laws mean, then anyone who can provoke someone into punching them in a spot with no witnesses can legally commit premeditated murder. It is an absolutely horrible travesty of justice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person can strap on a firearm, follow and chase anyone they think is acting suspicious, start a fight with them and kill them and get off scott free just because no one saw who started the fight, something is horribly horribly wrong.
That is an awfully big -if-. We don't know who started the physical fight. If it was Martin, that would be -understandable- what with minding his own business and being followed and all, but then it would still legally (as far as I understand FL law) be a "clean shoot".
If it was Zimmerman who initiated the physical confrontation, then it would be horribly horribly wrong for him to not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Either way, I say Zimmerman shares moral blame for being an armed vigilante.
Where I disagree with you is that words are almost -never- a good enough excuse to escalate to physical violence. So yes, it would be an ugly, wrong thing to do, to try and provoke a fight using words, and then further escalate to gun play, but that first escalation, where the "victim" tries to harm the shooter physically is still 100% unacceptable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Is there any factual question that you believe has not been resolved to your satisfaction?
...
the issue of provocation in the altercation and the issue of whether what Zimmerman did constituted manslaughter, to say the least.
If this really does not at all ping on your case analysis radar to the extent that you totally don't see them in favor of concluding that 'everything is satisfactorily resolved in Zimmerman's favor' you are so amazingly unaware of the actual ambiguities of the case that you are well behind any point where we could be credibly arguing said case to you, at present.
it is, to be frank, a little bit ridiculous. I know it is amazingly patronizing to put it this way but it is extremely telling to what extent you have concluded this case well beyond actual present ambiguities, and I really am surprised if you could not see why your mindset is perplexing to me when advanced under the pretense of being a fair analysis lacking personal supposed prejudgment.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it was Martin, that would be -understandable- what with minding his own business and being followed and all, but then it would still legally (as far as I understand FL law) be a "clean shoot".
I'm not confident of this analysis. Legally, the person who started the fight is not the same as the person who threw the first punch. If Zimmerman was "Doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in that other person that such violence is about to occur.", Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated assault. In other words, Zimmerman started the fight so stand your ground does not apply. I think Martin had a well-founded reason to believe that the stranger who was following him and chasing him intended to commit a violent act.
It seems to me that the three most likely explanations of how the fight started are:
1. Martin was scared that Zimmerman was about violently attack him and chose to improve his odds by making the first blow.
2. Martin chose to make an unprovoked attack on a neighborhood watch person who he knew was no threat to him.
3. Zimmerman grabbed or hit Martin first.
Of those three options, both 1 and 3 would mean Zimmerman started the fight and two is simply the least rational of the three. Unless Martin has a violent history we haven't heard about, that is just a really far fetched possibility. Martin is dead so he can't tell us why he was fighting with Zimmerman. Does that mean we should ignore reason and presume he made a unprovoked attack when we know that most people would have been genuinely scared by Zimmerman's behavior?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person can strap on a firearm, follow and chase anyone they think is acting suspicious, start a fight with them and kill them and get off scott free just because no one saw who started the fight, something is horribly horribly wrong.
That is an awfully big -if-. We don't know who started the physical fight. If it was Martin, that would be -understandable- what with minding his own business and being followed and all, but then it would still legally (as far as I understand FL law) be a "clean shoot".
Why do you see this as an awfully big if? I agree that we don't know exactly how the fight started but that isn't the question. The question is who should have the burden of proof. If you say that the prosecution should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, then you are in effect making it legal to kill some one in a fight whenever there are no witnesses.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It doesn't matter whether or not Martin was beating Zimmerman if Zimmerman started the fight.
This is exactly right.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It seems to me that the three most likely explanations of how the fight started are:
1. Martin was scared that Zimmerman was about violently attack him and chose to improve his odds by making the first blow.
2. Martin chose to make an unprovoked attack on a neighborhood watch person who he knew was no threat to him.
3. Zimmerman grabbed or hit Martin first.
Of those three options, both 1 and 3 would mean Zimmerman started the fight and two is simply the least rational of the three. Unless Martin has a violent history we haven't heard about, that is just a really far fetched possibility.
Overall I agree with your assessment. But I think that option 1 is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out, and doesn't necessarily mean that Zimmerman was at fault.
If Martin genuinely believed he was about to be attacked, then you're right. He would've been justified.
But I can also envision a scenario in which Zimmerman was verbally hostile or abrasive without being overtly threatening. He could have insulted Martin, or otherwise been rude, condescending, bossy, etc.
A sad fact of our culture is that a lot of young men are pretty quick to perceive insults, and to answer them with fists. I don't mean intensely violent unbalanced men, either. No history of reported violence doesn't mean Martin hadn't gotten into scrapes with kids at school. I don't think this possibility is unreasonable, but I also have no reason to think it's more likely than Martin reacting to an overt threat from Zimmerman.
Ultimately, this is why I try to reserve judgment on the actual case. I just don't know enough about what happened, and I'm not on the jury, so I don't need to force myself to pick one conclusion or the other.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to who has the burden of proof, I can not say. It is horrible to make it possible for people to kill and then make up the story as they are the only person left to question. It is also horrible to lock people up or execute them because theirs is the only voice left to speak. It's bad either way, and I don't know which is worse.
As to your three options, I don't agree that those are the three most likely explanations.
It was wrong for Zimmerman to play cop, that's for sure in my book. But there are still things that -could have happened- which make him shooting Martin legally not a crime, and possibly morally.
I will be curious to see what evidence comes out at trial, and what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence. And until such time hold my judgement in reserve as to if Zimmerman should be convicted.
No mater what else happens, Zimmerman should have his concealed weapon license revoked (although I'm sure he is getting lots of serious death threats these days, so maybe not). How about convicted of criminal stupidity for bringing a gun on neighborhood watch? That would be appropriate at this time.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where I disagree with you is that words are almost -never- a good enough excuse to escalate to physical violence. So yes, it would be an ugly, wrong thing to do, to try and provoke a fight using words, and then further escalate to gun play, but that first escalation, where the "victim" tries to harm the shooter physically is still 100% unacceptable.
Are you saying that a person has to wait until a would be attacker commits an act of physical violence before then are justified in defending themself? If a person is shouting that they are going to kill you and you are convinced they could do it and really are about to do it, do you have to wait until they throw the first punch before you are morally justified in use physical force against them? If a person is shouting obscenities at you and waving a gun, are you morally obliged to wait until they fire the gun before you are justified in using physical force?
What you have said, that words are never a justification to commit violence, literally means that if someone has followed you, has your back against the wall and is screaming that they are going to rape and kill you, you have to wait until they actually physically contact you before you would be morally justified in escalating to the use of physical force.
And on the flip side, you are saying that if someone who is much smaller than you punches you in the nose -- you should have the legal right to shoot them in self defense.
That just isn't rational and I'm sure its not what you really mean to be saying.
I think we are in agreement that a person should do everything in their power to avoid behavior that would escalate a shouting match into a physical fight. But there is some point at which threatening words and actions cross from being harmless insults to genuine reason to fear for your life. That line lies in a huge gray territory that isn't as simple as first physical contact. Lot's of times, being actually hit does not morally justify hitting back and at other times you are justified in using deadly force in your own defense before you've ever been hit.
I don't know where you draw the line, but in American society women and children are taught to be scared if someone is following them. We are taught to interpret that as a violent threat. If I were minding my own business and noticed someone tailing me, I'd head for any place where there were likely to be people. If the stranger gave chase and I didn't think I could make it to safety, I'd be prepared to hit him with everything I had as soon as he came in striking distance. Do you think I'd be justified?
Under those circumstance, if I broke the persons nose who'd been following me would it be fair to say I'd started the fight? If the person retaliated by shooting me, should the broken nose serve as evidence that they were acting only in self defense?
Why then do you say that Martin's action, though understandable, constitutes an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman that would justify invoke the stand your ground law.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I can also envision a scenario in which Zimmerman was verbally hostile or abrasive without being overtly threatening. He could have insulted Martin, or otherwise been rude, condescending, bossy, etc.
A sad fact of our culture is that a lot of young men are pretty quick to perceive insults, and to answer them with fists. I don't mean intensely violent unbalanced men, either. No history of reported violence doesn't mean Martin hadn't gotten into scrapes with kids at school. I don't think this possibility is unreasonable, but I also have no reason to think it's more likely than Martin reacting to an overt threat from Zimmerman.
In such situations, I don't think that there is a clear distinction between reacting out of fear and reacting out of anger. Fear and anger are both intimately tied to the biological "fight or flight response." In such a situation, no one reacts by rationally weighing the facts, it's a very primal gut response.
I think that even if you had been inside Martin's head during the fight, it would not have impossible to tell whether he was acting out of fear or anger. When one is threatened, fear and anger aren't separable. I'm a cyclist. I've ridden a bike in traffic in the US a lot and so I know what its like to be yelled at by an angry person who is capable of killing me instantly. There is no logic or reasoning involved. It's a very primal gut response that's as well described by terror as it is rage. Every cyclist I know describes the exact same response and though I've never been in the exact situation Martin was in, I imagine that primal mix of terror and rage is what I'd experience.
I recognize that most car drivers have never ridden a bike in traffic and so they don't realize that honking and swearing at a cyclist will be perceived as threatening their life so I'm willing to excuse their behavior. But I think any adult male in America ought to know that following a stranger at night is going to be perceived as a threat and is likely to provoke a fight or flight response. I think every adult in America should be expected to know that accosting a stranger at night on the street is likely to be perceived as threatening. Is it possible that Zimmerman was so utterly stupid that he didn't know that following someone was threatening behavior. Yeah. Is it possible that he was so incredibly dumb that he didn't know that getting out of his car while in pursuit of a person on foot would be seen as intimidating act. Yeah, it's possible, but I think it really doesn't matter. Almost every reasonable adult would consider those actions threatening and Martin certainly would have been within reason to react as though Zimmerman posed an imminent threat to him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of I said "almost never" not never. Big difference. You make a good point that at time non physical threats are appropriately responded to with physical violence. I think this is more rare, and only in certain cases of very threatening words or physically intimidating actions.
I don't think that just following someone is necessarily one of those. But there is a difference between following and chasing. What if in your scenario the guy chasing you, after you brake his nose, pulls out your wallet that you dropped and he was trying to return to you? You misunderstood his intent, and now you have committed assault and battery (I think).
Unless there is also a threat of violence, or an obvious weapon, following someone, in most cases is not sufficient provocation to incite violence.
As to someone smaller hitting me, and me shooting them, if they are initiating violence and I have a reasonable belief that my life is in danger, then I don't see the problem.
As to Martin, I did not say his attack was unprovoked (or that he initiated the attack at all), I said I don't know how it started and hold judgement until such time as I do.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It doesn't matter whether or not Martin was beating Zimmerman if Zimmerman started the fight.
This is exactly right.
So if someone starts a fight with you, it's okay to beat them to death after any possible threat they were to you was long neutralized?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to who has the burden of proof, I can not say. It is horrible to make it possible for people to kill and then make up the story as they are the only person left to question. It is also horrible to lock people up or execute them because theirs is the only voice left to speak. It's bad either way, and I don't know which is worse.
There is always some possibility that a person who has been convicted of a crime is innocent and its always a tragedy when someone innocent is punished.
It is almost never absolutely certain that someone is guilty. Even people who have confessed to crimes have occasionally been proven innocent. If we required absolute proof of guilt, no one would ever be convicted.
I've never been all that keen on punishment but I've observed what happens in a society when it is believed that crime goes unpunished. It's not pretty. To some degree, all people need to believe that their cooperation and respect for the laws will be reciprocated by others. If people don't believe that laws are justly made and enforced, they are less willing to follow laws. I'm not saying that the most people only obey the laws because of fear of punishment, its a lot more complicated than that. What I'm saying is that the more people who are able to break laws and violate societal expectations without any penalty, the less other people are willing cooperate for the good of society. When crime goes unpunished, it breeds general social dysfunction. If people don't believe that their society is just, they are more likely to engage in all kinds of anti-social behavior.
I think that's particularly important in this case because regardless of what really happened, if Zimmerman is not held accountable for killing Martin in some way, there will be all kinds of negative social repercussions. Suppose Zimmerman really was acting purely in self defense. Suppose he had actually apologized to Martin and then headed back to his car when Martin tackled him from behind. Suppose he screamed for help and begged Martin to stop. Suppose Martin tried to take the gun, they wrestled over control of the gun and in the process Martin got shot. Well, then it would be a real tragedy if Zimmerman was punished at all. But unless there is compelling evidence that that is how it happened (and not even Zimmerman hasn't made that claim), I believe it would be worse for our society for Zimmerman to be punished unjustly than to go unpunished.
After all, we know Zimmerman killed Martin. We know that as certainly as we ever know anything in a murder case. We know that if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin and if he hadn't gotten out of his car, there would have been no fight. Whether or not it rises to the level of a crime is debatable but that whether Zimmerman made mistakes that cost an innocent 17 year old boy his life is not in question.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that just following someone is necessarily one of those. But there is a difference between following and chasing. What if in your scenario the guy chasing you, after you brake his nose, pulls out your wallet that you dropped and he was trying to return to you? You misunderstood his intent, and now you have committed assault and battery (I think).
I'm pretty sure a person would not be charged with assault and battery under those circumstances unless they continued pounding on the chaser after they had made it clear they were just trying to return a wallet. Maybe things are different if you are a man, but women and children in America are taught that being followed and chased is a threat a violence.
quote:Unless there is also a threat of violence, or an obvious weapon, following someone, in most cases is not sufficient provocation to incite violence.
This is not what women and children are taught. We are taught that if a stranger is following us, we should presume they are trying to hurt us and try to protect ourselves. At least, this is what I have been taught repeatedly. Perhaps other women can comment.
quote:As to someone smaller hitting me, and me shooting them, if they are initiating violence and I have a reasonable belief that my life is in danger, then I don't see the problem.
I believe we agree that its not reasonable to respond with deadly force to every physical attack. That implies that when someone hits you, you have an obligation to decide whether they pose a legitimate threat of killing you or seriously injurying you. You have decided on what constitutes a proportionate response. If the person is unarmed, do you think size should be a factor in making that determination? Certainly its not the only factor, but size is critically important in a fight between unarmed people. Size is a huge advantage in a fight, that's why there are weight classes in all combat sports. Being killed in a fist fight is not impossible, but its very unlikely and it would be extremely unusually to be killed much smaller in an unarmed fight. David only defeated Goliath by using a projectile weapon, and its still considered a legendary feat.
[ May 23, 2012, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It doesn't matter whether or not Martin was beating Zimmerman if Zimmerman started the fight.
This is exactly right.
So if someone starts a fight with you, it's okay to beat them to death after any possible threat they were to you was long neutralized?
No one has said this nor implied it. I think the law is pretty clear on this. If you started the fight, you are no longer covered by the stand your ground law. You are back to the traditional law where you have the burden to prove that your life was in imminent danger and that you had exhausted all other means of escape or defense.
If Martin started the fight, then the stand your ground law put the burden on the state to prove that Zimmerman was not defending himself. If Zimmerman started the fight, he committed murder unless he can prove that he had not other option.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that Zimmerman was carrying again to buy groceries and patrol the neighborhood is reason alone for me doubt his ability accurately assess danger. The people I know who carry a concealed weapon routinely fall into a few simple categories.
1. People whose jobs require them to carry a weapon such as police officers and security guards. They are often encouraged to wear their weapon all the time so they become comfortable with it.
2. People whose jobs or other activities require them to regularly pass through areas with exceptionally high rates of violent crime.
3. People who are facing some specific threat, like being stalked by an abusive ex.
4. Bullies who like to pick fights and intimidate people.
5. People with highly unrealistic ideas about risks, safety and their own abilities. This includes a full spectrum from the paranoid to the firearm obsessed. The worst are those with delusions of heroism.
Zimmerman clearly does not fall into one of the first three categories which suggests a very high probability that he falls into one of the latter two. Based on the available info, it could be either one but I think 5 is the most likely. He just isn't someone I'd trust to be able to accurately assess what constitute real danger and what didn't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone should say anything has been proven at this point. I don't agree with a lot of what I read here, and I have been defending at least the possibility of Zimmerman being honest.....but even I said, more than once, that I look forward the trial to hear more details and proof.
So far, every time someone has yelled GOTCHA to Zimmerman, they ended up with egg on their face. He was injured, it did show on the tapes....etc....
But that is NOT proof he did nothing wrong.
I also don't think there is anything inherently wrong with carrying a gun. I wish I had had one walking home that night. Either way one of them died....but I almost did too, and two of them were never found.
YOU don't get to decide if my fears are real or not. If I am licensed, and own a gun, I have every right to carry it. And the fact that I am carrying it does not mean I waive all my other rights.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guns are inherently dangerous, when there is a human in the equation that is. A gun's purpose is to cause major bodily harm. I own many guns myself, and used to teach gun safety as a younger man.
I am in favor of guns being available to citizens in good standing, but I am not for unrestricted ownership or carry. You must respect a gun at all times, treat it with the proper handling and training, have the right equipment to carry and store it safely.
I live in Cali (take that rivka!) where many of the laws of gun ownership and gun safety are already in place, as well as some very stupid limitations which make no one safer what so ever, such as no "high capacity" mags and no "assault weapons". It saddens me deeply that more states do not have the wonderful laws mine do about safe handling/storage and screening for carry permits. Why should it be that it takes a political environment that is so anti gun as to have BS laws on the books to have basic safety laws on the books too? It makes no sense to me.
We make people take tests to prove they are reasonably able to handle a dangerous car, that they can see, but no such tests are in place in quite a few states (as far as I know) for guns.
Guns are not bad, but they are powerful and dangerous. Zimmerman should not have gotten a carry permit with his history. Should not have been paroling his neighborhood armed. Should not have been following a "suspicious subject". He should not have gotten out of his car.
When you are armed you carry a -higher- responsibility, to be clear minded and level headed, to not doing things that can lead to a fight, to not allowing yourself to be goaded by insult, because you have chosen to carry a heavy burden, the burden of life or death.
It is an adult, sober, heavy responsibility, and honestly not everyone is cut out for it. And I disagree with those who say it should be a right. It is a privlege, one that an individual who seeks it out should have to prove they are worthy of, by passing fair and impartial testing of their ability to handle a gun safely, of they mindset and intent in carrying lethal force, of their accuracy and ability not only to hit the right target but to pick the right target.
Tayvron Martin did not have to die. His death is a tragedy. I can not say if Zimmerman is guilty of breaking Florida law or not, and no one really can at this point. But if he wasn't, if what he did is okay in the eyes of the law, then the laws need to be changed, because what he did is wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The only evidence I've seen come out in Zimmerman's favor is that he had some superficial wounds"
A broken nose isn't a "superficial" wound, it's a level of violence most of us never experience in our lifetimes.
Plus, the bruised knuckles on Martin.
Plus, all the people that saw Martin standing over Zimmerman.
Plus, the people that recognized Zimmerman's voice being the one that shouted for help.
Plus, that marijuana was in Martin's system, which corroborates Zimmerman's words that he was acting either suspiciously or as if under the influence of drugs.
Plus, that all the supposedly racial focus on his 911 call turned out to be made by careful editing of the tapes to falsely present Zimmerman as racially-focused.
quote:Is there any factual question that you believe has not been resolved to your satisfaction?
quote:the issue of provocation in the altercation and the issue of whether what Zimmerman did constituted manslaughter
I asked for factual questions, not semantical/legalistic debating of what means "provocation" or "manslaughter".
quote:"The only evidence I've seen come out in Zimmerman's favor is that he had some superficial wounds"
A broken nose isn't a "superficial" wound, it's a level of violence most of us never experience in our lifetimes.
That's delusional. A non-deviated broken nose, like Zimmerman had, is an extremely common minor injury. Most people who have this kind of injury never seek medical attention and may never realize they broke their nose. I got a broken nose like Zimmerman had from walking at low speed into a glass wall. Athletes and children get this kind of injury all the time. The nose sticks out so its a vulnerable point. Have you ever been in an accident or a fight where you hurt your nose enough that it swelled up? If so, it was probably broken even if you didn't know it. I have no idea whether or not it's most people, but I do know that its extremely common for people to get a broken nose or a black eye in a minor accident or fight.
quote:Plus, the bruised knuckles on Martin.
The coroner reported a single 1/4 inch by 1/2 inch abrasion (scrape) on Martin's left fourth finger as the only injury other than the bullet wound. Bruised and bloody knuckles are not an accurate description of what was found. I asked before but you didn't answer so I'll ask again, explain to me how someone might scrape their forth left finger hitting someone but not injure any other part of their hand.
quote:Plus, all the people that saw Martin standing over Zimmerman.
Plus, the people that recognized Zimmerman's voice being the one that shouted for help.
Plus, that marijuana was in Martin's system, which corroborates Zimmerman's words that he was acting either suspiciously or as if under the influence of drugs.
The coroner found 1.5 ng/ml THC and 7.2 ng/ml THC-COOH in Martin's blood. These are far below the level known to have any psycho-active effect. If Martin had been using pot the day of the incident, one would expect a minimum of 100 ng/ml of THC. Traces of THC remain in the system for weeks. The level's found in Martin's blood are exactly what would be expected for someone who was expelled a few days earlier for possession of marijuana. Contrary to your claims, the levels of THC found in Martin's blood prove conclusively that he was not high or intoxicated on the night he was killed. .
quote:Plus, that all the supposedly racial focus on his 911 call turned out to be made by careful editing of the tapes to falsely present Zimmerman as racially-focused.
Yes the media edited parts to enhance the racial overtones but its unfair to say it was all a result of media falsification. I've read through the full unedited transcripts and listened to the raw tape. Have you? What do you think Zimmerman is saying in the part where he allegedly uses a racial epithet? There is room for honest disagreement but it sure sounds like he says "F__ing Coon" to me. But in the end, the racial element isn't all that relevant. It doesn't really matter why Zimmerman thought Martin was committing some crime.
Martin was absolutely not doing anything illegal that night. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing and to defend himself from an assailant. Do you think those facts are in any question?
quote:
quote:Is there any factual question that you believe has not been resolved to your satisfaction?
quote:the issue of provocation in the altercation and the issue of whether what Zimmerman did constituted manslaughter
I asked for factual questions, not semantical/legalistic debating of what means "provocation" or "manslaughter". [/QB]
I think pretty much every claim you've made here has not been resolved to my satisfaction. It seems like you've been getting your so called facts from Rush Limbaugh and nazi bloggers rather than reading the actual reports. Zimmerman did not have serious injuries -- he had very minor injuries that normally would not even require medical attention. Martin did not have bruised and bloody knuckles, he had a single scape on his left ring finger. The blood tests showed Martin had used drugs sometime in the last several weeks (no surprise there) but verify beyond reasonable doubt that he was not high on the night in question. The eyewitness accounts are conflicting, inconsistent and unreliable. Nothing that has been recently released is at all surprising to me or changes the situation to any significant degree.
The relevant facts that I believe to be clearly indisputably resolved include the following: 1. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. 2. Zimmerman pulled the trigger intentionally within a meter or less of Martin's chest, 3. Martin was not armed or involved in any illegal activity when Zimmerman began following him. and 4. immediately before the shooting, Martin and Zimmerman were fighting and one of them was screaming for help. Do you see any of those facts as disputable?
The question that remains unanswered is whether Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin because he was defending himself. That is both a legal question and a moral question. It is impossible to address that question without talking about things like provocation that you say are not "facts".
The facts I think need to be resolved to determine (either morally of legally) whether Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin include
1. How did the fight start? So far the preponderance of evidence indicates the fight started because Zimmerman threatened Martin via actions that American children and teens are taught to fear. It would take some very significant mitigating circumstances for killing to be morally justified because they fought back when you threatened them.
2. Who was calling for help? Witnesses disagree and keep changing their stories. Two expert voice analysts have said it wasn't Zimmerman calling for help. I expect that analysis of the calls for help on the 911 tapes will feature very prominently in the trial. If it was Zimmerman crying for help, that would go a long way toward supporting the claim of self defense. If it was Martin crying for help, it would strongly support the 2nd degree murder charge.
3. When and how did the gun come into play? If Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, he had every right to respond with deadly force.
4. Had Zimmerman exhausted other reasonable means of defense before he used the gun? He was older and significantly heavier than Martin which would make him a strong favorite in an unarmed fight. He knew that police were on the way. What made him decide he had to shoot right then and couldn't hold out a few minutes for help to arrive.
[ May 24, 2012, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Would *love* to hear your response, Aris, or several other people's responses, to Rabbit's post which demonstrates pretty conclusively that the idea 'all the evidence' favors Zimmerman is nonsense.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 3. When and how did the gun come into play? If Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, he had every right to respond with deadly force.
That to me is a big one. If I'm a young black man being chased by a larger man (who is clearly not a police officer), and I see that man has a gun, there's a good chance I am going to attack him. In self defense!
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: 3. When and how did the gun come into play? If Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, he had every right to respond with deadly force.
That to me is a big one. If I'm a young black man being chased by a larger man (who is clearly not a police officer), and I see that man has a gun, there's a good chance I am going to attack him. In self defense!
Exactly. If the assailant is unarmed, it makes the most sense to run. If he has a gun, it changes the equation. You can't out run a bullet.
[ May 24, 2012, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you ever been in an accident or a fight where you hurt your nose enough that it swelled up?
No.
A fight that involves my head getting injured from both the front and the back (a mere push/stumble to the ground would injure only one side), would almost certainly be a fight for my life -- and if I had a gun on me I'd use it to protect said life.
quote:The coroner reported a single 1/4 inch by 1/2 inch abrasion (scrape) on Martin's left fourth finger as the only injury other than the bullet wound. Bruised and bloody knuckles are not an accurate description of what was found. I asked before but you didn't answer so I'll ask again, explain to me how someone might scrape their forth left finger hitting someone but not injure any other part of their hand.
Wait, are you now actually saying that Martin never once hit Zimmerman?
Is this the actual claim you're saying the evidence points to? That's not credible at all. Even Martin's girlfriend indicates she heard people fighting, no?
quote:You mean all the people who've changed their stories repeatedly?
I trust their earlier testimonies more than their later ones, don't you?
But actually I meant those people who recognized Zimmerman's voice in the recordings, when even Martin's own father didn't recognize his son's voice.
quote:Martin was absolutely not doing anything illegal that night. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing and to defend himself from an assailant.
And Zimmerman was likewise not doing anything illegal that night. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing -- and since the one with the injuries is Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman who was defending himself from an assailant.
quote:But in the end, the racial element isn't all that relevant
It was the only thing that seemed to be relevant, until it was effectively disproven as a motivation.
quote:If it was Martin crying for help, it would strongly support the 2nd degree murder charge.
It wasn't Martin. It was Zimmerman. Once it's definitively proven to not have been Martin that was shouting out, my prediction is that you will change your position to say that who was shouting out to be as irrelevant as you now called the supposed racial motivation.
I say again: It's over for all intends and purposes. The only people who still make something out of this, are the people who want to make something out of this.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Martin was absolutely not doing anything illegal that night. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing and to defend himself from an assailant.
And Zimmerman was likewise not doing anything illegal that night. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing -- and since the one with the injuries is Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman who was defending himself from an assailant.
You seem to overlook the fact that Martin had a rather more serious injury. In fact, you seem entirely unconcerned about the fact that a boy ended up dead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, are you now actually saying that Martin never once hit Zimmerman?
Is this the actual claim you're saying the evidence points to? That's not credible at all. Even Martin's girlfriend indicates she heard people fighting, no?
I never made any such claim. I said that your claim that Martin had bruised and bloody knuckles is not supported by the coroners report. Do you dispute this fact? If so, can you please point me to the place in the coroners report that says he had bruised and bloody knuckles?
I think its evident that the two were fighting and extremely likely that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose. It's pretty easy to break some ones nose without injuring your hand. An absence of hand injures is not conclusive. If you know how, you can do a lot of serious damage to a person without injuring your hands. You can also easily break all the bones in your hand by punching someone in the head. In fact, that's much more likely than causing the person a serious head injury.
There are lots of ways Martin might have received a small scrape on one finger during the fight but repeatedly pummeling Zimmerman with his fists (as is implied by the claim of bruised and bloody knuckles) would not likely have left a scrape on just his left ring finger but no other marks. Are you disputing this as fact?
You are the one who claimed that the facts are conclusive evidence of self defense but what you maintain to be established "facts" are demonstrably untrue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I say again: It's over for all intends and purposes. The only people who still make something out of this, are the people who want to make something out of this.
You and many others who are defending Martin are making claims about the evidence and the facts that are demonstrably untrue. You don't change your tune even when your errors are clearly pointed out. If anyone is rushing to judgement, it's the people who are saying Zimmerman shouldn't be tried. If anyone is demonstrating a clear bias in the case, its the side that is obviously exaggerating the facts from the coroners report to smear the young man who was killed.
If the established facts so clearly support your side, why do you need to exaggerate them? If a scratch on Martin's finger and the other established facts are clear proof that he was giving Zimmerman a serious beating, why is anyone claiming the report said he had bruised and bloody knuckles?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
