Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[TimothyC]

Zimmermann is the one who deliberately brought deadly force into the confrontation with no justification. That's the dealbreaker for me. I don't get to stalk strangers and blow them away just because they freak out that a creeper with a gun is following them around. For all Martin knew Zimmermann was a criminal who was scouting out a new target to rob or about to mug him. There's so much talk about Zimmerman, his injuries and him acting in self-defense when it is much more likely that Martin was the only one truly acting in self-defense.
This verdict is a shame.

Here is the flaw in that thinking:

There was no confrontation until after Zimmerman had lost track of Martin.

Martin, having disengaged from Zimmerman, decided to come back and confront Zimmerman. Martin made no effort to stay hidden from Zimmerman, and made no effort to contact the police about what was going on.

[Terralthra]

Zimmermann is the one who deliberately brought deadly force into the confrontation with no justification. That's the dealbreaker for me. I don't get to stalk strangers and blow them away just because they freak out that a creeper with a gun is following them around. For all Martin knew Zimmermann was a criminal who was scouting out a new target to rob or about to mug him. There's so much talk about Zimmerman, his injuries and him acting in self-defense when it is much more likely that Martin was the only one truly acting in self-defense.
This verdict is a shame.

Here is the flaw in that thinking:

There was no confrontation until after Zimmerman had lost track of Martin.

Martin, having disengaged from Zimmerman, decided to come back and confront Zimmerman. Martin made no effort to stay hidden from Zimmerman, and made no effort to contact the police about what was going on.

Here's the flaw in that thinking: Everything you assert regarding a confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin, and who made the decision to initiate that confrontation, is based solely on Zimmerman's word. He has every reason to relay a self-serving story, and the other side of the story is lost forever because the only person who could've told us what happened from Martin's perspective is Martin, and he's dead, because Zimmerman killed him.

Yes, it is possible that's what happened, or close enough - that's why there was reasonable doubt enough to find Zimmerman not guilty - but that is not the same as saying that is what happened. "Reasonable doubt" goes both ways, and you aren't paying nearly enough credence to the idea that if we don't know what happened, we can't go solely on the word of the guy who shot and killed the only other witness, for obvious fucking reasons.

[Kon_El]

He'd already been caught for possession of stolen property and burglary tools,

Said burglary tools being...a flathead screwdriver.

A large flathead screwdriver is the most widely used burglary tool in existence.

[Metahive]

A large flathead screwdriver is the most widely used burglary tool in existence.

Yeah, and knives and guns are the most widely used mugging tools in existence. Your point?

[Grumman]

For all Martin knew Zimmermann was a criminal who was scouting out a new target to rob or about to mug him. There's so much talk about Zimmerman, his injuries and him acting in self-defense when it is much more likely that Martin was the only one truly acting in self-defense.

You can't physically assault someone just because you think they're following you in public. When I was only a little bit older than Martin, I was on a late night walk when I encountered a man who was actually taking drugs as he asked me if he could have some money. And then later on the same walk it happened again. Despite this coincidence, neither of us assumed the other was a mugger, and neither of us preemptively started a physical altercation.

[Metahive]

The last time some creeper followed me around it ended with him drawing a knife and demanding my wallet and my clothes. I kicked him in the gut and ran away.

The plural of anecdotes ain't data.

EDIT:
I also repeat, Zimmermann was the one who introduced a lethal weapon into the situation, the responsibility to defuse the situation was therefore his. I also don't believe his story that he was ambushed by Martin anyway.

[Kon_El]

A large flathead screwdriver is the most widely used burglary tool in existence.

Yeah, and knives and guns are the most widely used mugging tools in existence. Your point?

The part I quoted seemed to be dismissing the idea of a flathead screwdriver as a burglary tool.

[Kon_El]

EDIT:
I also repeat, Zimmermann was the one who introduced a lethal weapon into the situation, the responsibility to defuse the situation was therefore his. I also don't believe his story that he was ambushed by Martin anyway.

Wasn't the sidewalk being used as a deadly weapon before the pistol was introduced?

[Beowulf]

These attempts to paint Martin as some sort of public menace, what purpose do they serve? Even if all the insinuations are true, they still do not warrant him getting stalked by a Dirty Harry wannabe with a deadly weapon when all he was currently engaged in was going home.

They go to the narrative that Martin was a violent individual who, after having disengaged from Zimmerman, re-engaged and attacked him. That's important because it helps Zimmerman's case that following his losing track of Martin, the only actions he took were those of self defense.

You missed that if Martin was a thief (see the suspension for having stolen women's jewelry, and burglary tools), it's probable that he was casing places on his way back from the store, and Zimmerman was right to profile him as someone up to no good, even if he never saw Martin's skin color until well after he started actively tracking him. Recall the environment: rainy night. It's likely that Martin had the hood up, and hands in his pockets. If Martin was looking in places, his back would have been to the street, with little to no skin showing to be able to profile based on race (as opposed to behavior).

[Terralthra]

He'd already been caught for possession of stolen property and burglary tools,

Said burglary tools being...a flathead screwdriver.

A large flathead screwdriver is the most widely used burglary tool in existence.

It's also a widely used tool, for things besides burglary. I have at least a dozen flathead screwdrivers of various sizes in my house, and at least two more in my car. I'd lay even odds that Zimmerman had a flathead screwdriver in his car that night, in fact. Claiming that possession of a flathead screwdriver means jack or shit about being a "thug in training" is the problematic implication.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's also a widely used tool, for things besides burglary. I have at least a dozen flathead screwdrivers of various sizes in my house, and at least two more in my car. I'd lay even odds that Zimmerman had a flathead screwdriver in his car that night, in fact. Claiming that possession of a flathead screwdriver means jack or shit about being a "thug in training" is the problematic implication.

To give a bit more context just possessing a flat head screwdriver isn't enough to get you charged with possession of burglary tools because that would obviously be unreasonable. However, being caught engaged in a burglary or possession of stolen property - which is what was alleged Martin had - then possession of the flat head screwdriver combined with the stolen property is probable cause that the tool is a burglary tool especially if that stolen property is traced back to a burglary of a home, business, or vehicle.

All that being said I find the character praising/assassination done by both sides as completely irrelevant and it doesn't have a place in the investigation or trial. Now for sentencing your past should come in to play but it has no place in a trial.

Zimmerman may have assaulted his wife, a police officer, and molested his cousin. All that can be true and he would still be allowed to defend himself therefore not relevant to the trial. Martin could smoke marijuana, take pictures with guns, and steals property but that does not mean that Zimmerman had a reasonable suspicion to follow Martin and is therefore not relevant to the trial.

To be clear Zimmerman did not have reasonable suspicion but he followed Martin. His reason was "it's raining and he doesn't have his hood up and is looking at houses". Well, shit man when I walk around I look at stuff too and maybe Martin was enjoying the rain or it wasn't bothering him.

Unfortunately, to my knowledge there is no law against following someone so you can't call it stalking and it doesn't give Martin the right to assault Zimmerman either.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The last time some creeper followed me around it ended with him drawing a knife and demanding my wallet and my clothes. I kicked him in the gut and ran away.

The plural of anecdotes ain't data.

EDIT:
I also repeat, Zimmermann was the one who introduced a lethal weapon into the situation, the responsibility to defuse the situation was therefore his. I also don't believe his story that he was ambushed by Martin anyway.

You can't reasonable expect someone to defuse a situation that has already escalated to physical violence and then appears to be escalating to great bodily harm.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's some stuff for you, KS.
Australian self-defence laws in criminal matters A basic go-over.
Current Law on Self Defence Some more intense stuff from NSW (although Friendly is actually from WA, so there may be differences). This pretty much made me dizzy, but points I got from it:

1) The Prosecution must deal with and disprove self-defence. It's not a "Special Defence", it's a first automatic step, and they have to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt, the defence doesn't have to prove it.

2) The steps of self defence are (all this has to be DISPROVEN, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution)
.... i) Did the accused, from the accused state of mind and the conditions he found himself in, have reasonable cause to feel threatened? IMPORTANT! It's from the accused's state of mind and subjective view, NOT a hypothetical "Reasonable Person"
If no, then self-defence does not apply. If yes, then:
.... ii) Were the actions of self defence reasonable from the accused's viewpoint, considering his state of mind?
If no, then self-defence does not apply. If yes, then:
.... iii) Were the actions of self defence reasonable from a "reasonable person's" viewpoint, objectively?
If no, then it is manslaughter. If yes, then it is self defence.

3) Voluntarily diminished capacity (eg drunk, high) is taken into account when appraising the accused's state of mind. This is as opposed to if you cause a car accident and whine "But I was drunk", where the only effect of that, I believe, is they find you guilty of drink driving too. Basically, being impaired is a defence if someone attacks you, and fair enough, too.

4) While not relevant to the case in question, you cannot claim self defence if using lethal force in defence of property.

Zimmerman may (or may not) have been found guilty of manslaughter, based on the "Reasonable man" test, but not murder.

Interesting. These self defense laws appear quite similar to self defense laws in the states. I wonder what Mr. Friendly was remembering when he talked about praising the US for being able to defend one self. Though he did mention that he was very young. I wonder what year these laws were enacted and what difference there is to the laws they replaced. I'm just thinking out loud and not asking you or anyone else to research that.

Thank you.

Mr. Friendly Guy would you say your objection to US self defense laws is due to firearms rather than language?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

RaHoWa - Racial Holy War

I do hope you can understand why this term means absolutely nothing to the very large majority of whites (and Asians and so on) who are not actual skinheads. It's kind of like how the number "88" is used as a sort of second or third-order rhyming slang thing for "Heil Hitler" in the neo-Nazi community; the very reason they have such a code-phrase is because no one outside their immediate in-group knows what the hell they're talking about.

Zimmermann is the one who deliberately brought deadly force into the confrontation with no justification. That's the dealbreaker for me. I don't get to stalk strangers and blow them away just because they freak out that a creeper with a gun is following them around. For all Martin knew Zimmermann was a criminal who was scouting out a new target to rob or about to mug him. There's so much talk about Zimmerman, his injuries and him acting in self-defense when it is much more likely that Martin was the only one truly acting in self-defense.
This verdict is a shame.

One note, as a hypothetical case:

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Zimmerman happened to be telling the truth (not likely). Suppose events unfolded that way, but he did not draw a gun, and got beaten up.

If that had happened Martin have been able to avoid being charged with assault and battery by reason of self-defense? Should he have been able to?

As a matter of general principle, if a scary person is following you, and you escape their pursuit, should you be allowed to circle back and attack them? I would think "no," among other things because it would lead to 'reverse Zimmerman' incidents: hostile confrontations between a random person and the OMG SCARY BLACK MAN who they falsely believe is 'stalking' them, which could lead to violence.

[Kane Starkiller]

Watching this case as a non American the impression I got is that situation in US is such that blacks are routinely murdered by whites thus generating the kind of outrage and protests that surrounded this case.
However checking the Bureau of Justice Statistics report (page 13) that details murder statistics from 1980 to 2008 we see that 93% of black victims were killed by blacks.
Furthermore for the last 30 years number of black on white homicides was twice greater than white on black even though blacks comprise roughly 12% of the population.

[Mr. Coffee]

Thats because we've got news outlets like NBC doing their level best to blow the race angle out of proportion and several tens of millions of citizens who're dumb enough to buy it hook, line, and sinker, Kane.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The issue isn't that white people murder people of colour in general, but that extrajudicial murder by authorities or vigilante violence happen very disproportionately to people of colour from white figures of authority or people let off by that authority. Almost every single day a black man is reported as killed extrajudicially by police or vigilante violence. Usually unarmed, almost always listed in the report itself as excessive use of force. And that's just what gets publicly reported, so the real numbers are even worse.

[Kane Starkiller]

But again black-on-white murder rate is roughly 15 times greater than white-on-black murder rate. Is it surprising that clashes with authorities (justified or not) will also consequently be skewed towards black people?

[Flagg]

Democracy Now

Trayvon Martin’s Unpunished Shooting Death Among 100+ Extrajudicial Killings of Unarmed Blacks

According to a recent study, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his killer is not unique. In "Operation Ghetto Storm," the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM) found at least 136 unarmed African Americans were killed by police, security guards and self-appointed vigilantes in 2012. Overall, one black person was killed in an extrajudicial shooting every 28 hours. We speak with Kali Akuno, a longtime MXGM organizer and author of "Let Your Motto Be Resistance: A Handbook on Organizing New Afrikan and Oppressed Communities." "This speaks to the mindset of criminalizing blackness," Akuno says. "We see it systematically throughout this country and really we have to get at the heart of it and have a much deeper conversation. I think the mass movement which is taking place in response [to the Trayvon Martin case] is an opening shot to have that conversation."

There's more at the link.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

But again black-on-white murder rate is roughly 15 times greater than white-on-black murder rate. Is it surprising that clashes with authorities (justified or not) will also consequently be skewed towards black people?

How did you get from twice as high to 15 times as high with the same figure and the same source? Which one are you going by?

PS according to that report, 82% of white people who are murdered are murdered by other white people. Black people have a higher murder rate overall, so it's slightly overrepresentative of the population (the report doesn't list hispanic so I assume it's not listed and white people by this definition are ~85% of the population), but if you're going to worry about being murdered as a white person and racially profile as a result, watch out for other white people.

As for the higher murder rate, some of that is probably due to the disproportionate poverty/incarceration level, but a lot of it is likely something else. Your report lists almost half of all murders by black people as being drug-related, much higher than the rate for white people. Black people are very heavily disproportionately criminalised for drug use compared to other races (as in they're much more likely to be penalised if caught for the same thing and have much harsher penalties), and we all know the effects the drug war have on violence.

[Kane Starkiller]

Total number of murders commited by blacks on whites is 2 times greater than murders commited by whites on blacks. Since blacks represent about 13% of the population of US murder rate is therefore 15 times greater.

Blacks commited about 50% of all murders in US which, considering their percentage of the total population, is not a slight but a major overrepresentation.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Total number of murders commited by blacks on whites is 2 times greater than murders commited by whites on blacks. Since blacks represent about 13% of the population of US murder rate is therefore 15 times greater.

This makes zero sense. If you're using the smaller proportion of black people in the population against them in their murder rate, you need to include it in their rate of being murdered, which means it balances out and you're left with... two times greater.

Blacks commited about 50% of all murders in US which, considering their percentage of the total population, is not a slight but a major overrepresentation.

But the vast majority of that is intraracial violence, as you yourself even pointed out, so that has nothing to do with my point of white people who racially profile black people as dangerous to their life, since most killers of white people are white and even if murder were entirely random you'd have 85% white-on-white rather than the 82% we see now.

I think you're trying to find stuff about black people being randomly killed by white people, but that's not how it goes. The real issue is that the (white-controlled) system indirectly but honestly in some ways deliberately sets it up so that black people are the victims of significantly higher violence through systematic impoverishment and criminalisation, and to make it worse (white) law-enforcement figures disproportionately murder black people through racial profiling, in addition to all the other law-enforcement abuses people of colour have to deal with that keeps police from being much of a help to the situation.

[Kane Starkiller]

This makes zero sense. If you're using the smaller proportion of black people in the population against them in their murder rate, you need to include it in their rate of being murdered, which means it balances out and you're left with... two times greater.

2 times is not a murder rate. Look at the chart no.19 on the page 13. Black-on-white murders comprised about 10% of all murders. This is not a rate but total number of murders. White-on-black comprised 5% of all murders. Therefore TOTAL number of white people killed by black people is two times greater than TOTAL number of black people killed by white people in the years 1980 to 2008.
Since there are 7.7 times less black people than there are white people that means murder rate is 15 times greater.
That is an average black person is 15 times more likely to kill a white person than vice versa.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

This makes zero sense. If you're using the smaller proportion of black people in the population against them in their murder rate, you need to include it in their rate of being murdered, which means it balances out and you're left with... two times greater.

2 times is not a murder rate. Look at the chart no.19 on the page 13. Black-on-white murders comprised about 10% of all murders. This is not a rate but total number of murders. White-on-black comprised 5% of all murders. Therefore TOTAL number of white people killed by black people is two times greater than TOTAL number of black people killed by white people in the years 1980 to 2008.
Since there are 7.7 times less black people than there are white people that means murder rate is 15 times greater.
That is an average black person is 15 times more likely to kill a white person than vice versa.

And since the white population is seven times the black population, you have to account for this, too. Asian-Americans are much more likely to murder white people than vice versa, too, since they're such a tiny sliver of the population. If you don't account for the disparity in population, the figure is entirely meaningless.

Also, I need to make some revisions to my earlier statement. I underestimated the population that's neither white nor black; white people (as would be defined by that report you linked) are <80% of the population. So if 82% of murders of white people are done by white people, then it's actually disproportionately high.

[Kane Starkiller]

And since the white population is seven times the black population, you have to account for this, too. Asian-Americans are much more likely to murder white people than vice versa, too, since they're such a tiny sliver of the population. If you don't account for the disparity in population, the figure is entirely meaningless.

I'm not sure what confuses you. I did account for the population disparity: blacks managed to rack up two times higher body count against whites despite having 7.7 times smaller population.
Whether white population is 200 million or 200 trillion is completely irrelevant for this purpose. The number is not meaningless. I have already explained the meaning.