catbarf on 19/7/2013 at 20:21
Quote Posted by DDL
Well, no: after you are no longer in a position to do anything about it. If someone disarms me but does not actually threaten my life, but THEN threatens my life once I'm disarmed, is it justifiable to shoot them before they disarm me? Coz hey, you never know rite?
As for head injuries, generally speaking while it's certainly true that serious head trauma can show very little external signs, very mild head trauma can show incredibly impressive external signs. I regularly shave my head, and when I accidentally nick myself it's like the elevator scene from the shining.
As for pushing him off, perhaps he was hampered in his abilities to push the dude off because his hands were full of gun? Come to that, how was he able to draw his gun and fire it, yet not do literally anything else less lethal?
Finally, there's basically just not enough evidence to say that
either party was being stupid and violent. We have literally zero concrete evidence other than "testimony of the guy who shot a kid", which I hope you'd agree is ....suspect by definition? I'm finding the assumption that "Martin definitely attacked him and was probably trying to kill him" a bit far-reaching, given that it's based on very little. The assumption that "Zimmerman shot a kid" is slightly easier to find evidence for. "Leaving out a lot of important details" is basically all we can do, since we don't HAVE any of the important details.
Overall, I don't want to argue the point too much, since we both agree it's fucked up, and I can feel ANGRY INTERNAUT RAGE building, which'd just be a pointlessly unnecessary aggressive approach. And would probably involve lots of caps and hyperbole.
I just wish they'd use this case (and the other, seriously even more fucked up examples this thread has provided) to really think about the implementation of laws like this. If you can go out, with a gun, deliberately provoke a situation in which you can claim to be threatened, shoot some peeps, and then get a pat on the back and a "working as intended", then something is clearly wrong.
I appreciate the level-headed response, and I'm sorry if I came across as overly aggressive in my previous posts. You definitely bring up some good points, but I think we may be talking past each other a little. I just don't like the extremely skewed portrayal that some people have been presenting- that Zimmerman was racially biased, accosted an innocent teen purely because he was black, deliberately engineered a fight, and resorted to a gun when he lost with his fists, and that all of these are known facts. Ultimately too many details are known only by two parties, one of whom is not a reliable source while the other is dead.
Most of all, I hate the outright falsehoods and misrepresentations disseminated by much of the media and the extremely biased way information has been revealed and presented, because it is now the reason why we have these riots in the first place. Stuff like editing a 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist is not okay. I'm normally one to dogpile Fox News for their constant bullshit so I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone when their coverage seems overall to be the most reasonable and factual.
As far as the law is concerned, I don't think this is the case to highlight the failure of Stand Your Ground, especially considering it wasn't even invoked as a defense. There are too many unknowns and variables in the case to use it as an example of bad laws, because ultimately Zimmerman was released not with backslapping congratulations from the state, but a shrug accompanied by the phrase 'reasonable doubt'.
At the end of it all, what started as a fairly commonplace, albeit tragic, event has been blown up by the media on tenuous grounds and turned into a national shitshow involving everyone from the Black Panthers to the President, and now LA is on fire
again. And worst of all, nobody feels that justice has been served because everyone has their own personal view on what happened. It's just a mess.
Edit: Nickie, I'm pretty sure Zimmerman outweighed Martin, but remember that Zimmerman was described by his MMA instructor as 'soft' and a '0.5/10' (ouch) while Martin ran and participated in a fight club. I don't think it would be unfair to say that physically Martin had a significant advantage.
june gloom on 20/7/2013 at 18:28
Quote Posted by catbarf
so I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone when their coverage seems overall to be the most reasonable and factual.
Just because it skews towards your personal biases/opinions/whatever does not make it reasonable and factual, even if it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
jay pettitt on 20/7/2013 at 19:54
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Isn't Zimmerman 5'7”? Martin 6'2"? Weights?
And if someone is hitting your head on the ground I think that's a pretty good sign that they mean to do you serious harm.
Sure, but it's important to ask why Martin was hitting Zimmerman's head on the ground. If someone shoots you dead with a gun, then they probably mean to do you some harm - but we ask why Zimmerman did it, and we're reasonably happy to accept that a scenario where you feel you're in danger, behaving in such a way is excusable. We should afford Martin the same before deciding that this was a good guy Zimmerman, bad guy Martin situation.
SubJeff on 20/7/2013 at 21:28
You're confusing things. I'm not saying that Martin had no reason to fight, I'm just challenging the silly assumptions in this thread one by one.
june gloom on 21/7/2013 at 00:51
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Jeff Bridges-looking scraggly motherfucker (thanks Dethy)
you're welcome <3
catbarf on 21/7/2013 at 02:34
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Just because it skews towards your personal biases/opinions/whatever does not make it reasonable and factual, even if it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
Fox News at least wasn't editing phone tapes (NBC) or misreporting facts of testimony (CNN). That's hardly a matter of 'skewing towards personal biases'.
CCCToad on 21/7/2013 at 04:29
Quote:
Just because it skews towards your personal biases/opinions/whatever does not make it reasonable and factual, even if it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
Inline Image:
http://i43.tinypic.com/20ptqhc.jpgjune gloom on 21/7/2013 at 04:56
Yes, you should do exactly that.
And anyway catbarf, I'm not talking about CNN or NBC. I'm talking about Fox News. The "broken clock" rule does not apply here.
William Baric on 21/7/2013 at 22:44
I'm really puzzled with this. I'm not American, but I tried to get information about this event and I can't understand the outcry. To me, it strongly looks like a case of self-defence. I wonder if I'm missing something.
I don't completely believe Zimmerman's account of events. For example, I don't believe him when he said Martin circled his vehicule. So I take what he declared with a big grain of salt.
First, I do believe Zimmerman had a reason to be suspicious.
Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin, who was returning from a convenient store. I'm not sure I believe this. Is it normal in the US to go to a grocery store with a gun? Having said that, even if he was simply driving around to play his role as a neighbourhood watch volunteer, it doesn't change much.
I'm not sure of the location of the 7-11 where Martin went, but looking at Google Earth, it seems to be one which was situated to the west of the the gated community. I also looked at several websites with maps trying to guess Martin's path and they all showed Martin coming from the west
I don't think Martin entered the place from the main gate. The distance from the main entrance to the place where Zimmerman left his vehicle is only about 135 meters. Because of that, I believe what Zimmerman said about where he first saw Martin is true. If Martin was coming from the convenient store, going to where he lived and didn't go through the main gate, then the only thing which make sense is to go between the two houses like Zimmerman said.
It means Martin was trespassing on private property. There are no fences between properties, but to me it is a reason for Zimmerman to be suspicious, particularly in a neighbourhood with so many crimes. Did Martin was looking at the houses like Zimmerman said? It's possible, or maybe Zimmerman was just imagining things, but I don't think it's that relevant.
After seeing Martin entering the place, Zimmerman did more or less follow him. Why he didn't just ask Martin something like "may I help you" instead of calling the police is strange to me. But then, why Martin didn't just do the same thing if he thought Zimmerman was looking at him? Is this part of the American culture to never speak to anyone and to be afraid of everyone?
Zimmerman said he parked his truck about 90 meters farther to make his call at 19:09:34. I don't think there's any reason to believe it's false. He said Martin went past him and he said he parked his car about 100 meters farther to continue looking at Martin. During the call, I hear the sound of what could be an automatic gearbox. So my guess is he's telling the truth.
Zimmerman then said Martin turned back to check him out. That's on the call recording and since at that moment Zimmerman seemed to to be worried for himself, asking when the police officer will arrive, I again believe him.
After that, several things of what Zimmerman says is in contradiction with the recording of the call.
One thing is, when I listen to the call recording, I found Zimmerman's voice strange. He doesn't seem to be aggressive or angry at all, but he there's something not right. At first, I thought he was on drugs. Zimmerman declared he was under medication for ADHD. I'm not sure what exactly are the effects of those drugs, but it sounds to me he was slow and not completely there.
When Zimmerman says Martin is running at 19:11:41, Martin is at most 150 meters from his house. So it's about 45 seconds at a jogging speed or about two minutes walking at a slow pace.
I suppose that when Martin ran it was a proof for Zimmerman that Martin was doing, or did, something wrong. I also guess that it gave confidence to Zimmerman that Martin was not going to attack him. To me, since Zimmerman couldn't see Martin anymore, that's why Zimmerman chose to get out of his vehicle and tried to see where Martin went.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin at 19:12:00 and he replied okay. I'm not sure if he stopped running immediately or if he ran a bit more. We hear him still breathing heavily after he said okay, but it takes a bit of time to take one's breath. When Zimmerman said "he ran" at 19:12:11, I'm guessing he abandon the idea of running anyway. At about 19:12:30, his voice is normal, so he was not running anymore.
During the reconstitution, Zimmerman indicated that when he said "he ran", he was near the pedestrian path between houses and he didn't saw Martin. He then said that he went to the other street. I think his excuse he was looking for an address is false, I guess he was still looking for Martin, but I do think he really went to the street. I think he looked, didn't saw Martin and then came back on the path between houses.
Zimmerman hung up at about 19:13:39. Even if Martin was walking slowly, he should have reached his house before Zimmerman hung up. I conclude Martin chose to confront Zimmerman. Also, since the altercation took place about 15 meters away from where Zimmerman was at 19:12:11, it's clear to me that not only Martin chose to not go to his house, but he also went back to confront Zimmerman.
At the time, Martin was talking to a friend. Her description that Zimmerman cornered him is obviously false. On the other hand, when she said that Martin first asked "why are you following me for" and that Zimmerman replied "What are you doing around here", I believe this is true. I also believed it's true that the fight began just after that.
Because of Zimmerman's fear when Martin was near his car, because Zimmerman's tone of voice while talking to the dispatcher did not show anger or sign of being "macho", because Martin chose to confront Zimmerman and because Martin didn't answer to Zimmerman (why didn't he simply said something like "I 'm going home"?), I don't think that Zimmerman started the fight.
Three witness said they saw Zimmerman lying on the ground with Martin on top of him. One of the witness said Martin was "throwing punches MMA style". Because of Zimmerman's injuries, because the autopsy on Martin's body showed no injury (apart to his knuckles and from the bullet wound), I think it's safe to say that Martin was indeed hitting violently Zimmerman, while Zimmerman did not throw a single punch or was really bad at fighting.
On one of the call to 911, we hear someone crying for help several time before hearing a gunshot at about 19:16:39. Zimmerman said he yelled for help probably 50 times. This is clearly an exaggeration, but since the gunshot was 30 second after the begining of one of the 911 call, and I think it's safe to assume it took a bit of time before the person called 911, I believe Zimmerman was on the ground receiving punches and yelling for help for at least a minute before using his gun. This seems to me a very long time to do nothing.
I also find completely ludicrous the idea that Martin was the one yelling for help.
Another thing which to me is very significant is that Martin continued to hit Zimmerman despite him yelling for help. I did get in a few fights and when someone yell for help like Zimmerman did, it really put you back into your senses. This is the time you realize it's going too far. Since Zimmerman continued to yell for help several time, I assume Martin didn't stop. My guess is Martin was in a complete state of rage.
I don't believe Martin saw Zimmerman's gun. Did Martin said "you're going to die tonight"? I think it's possible. But even if he didn't, it would have been legitimate for Zimmerman to fear for his life.
Based on this, to me it's quite clear it was a case of self-defence. So why everyone consider Martin as a victim? I don't get it.
(Woaw! This is a long post!)
