Questions for George Zimmerman supporters.

[tonberry]

That is only if you believe that Trayvon Martin did NOT attack George Zimmerman and only agree with the verdict due to lack of evidence. If Martin did attack George Zimmerman, then I fail to see how one could argue that the need for the right to carry is somehow diminished by this case.

Not at all. If George Zimmerman would not have been armed, this "neighborhood watch" incident would have only result in minor injuries (assuming he would have acted the same way unharmed). If he was armed but not trying to do the job of the police, then nothing would have happen too, whether Trayvon Martin was looking suspicious or not.

On the other hand, even if a very racist and armed cop in a bad mood would have been the one who spotted Martin, he would still be alive because I highly doubt that he would have try to attack the cop.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'll answer both of these together. The bottom line is no one will know exactly what happened last night. But one person is dead and another was beaten, so someone obviously did something wrong.

It may seem like a nitpick to you, but for my interpretation of your answer it's rather an important nuance as I'll explain. You said: someone as in singular. That combined with the follow-up

I think Zimmerman was trying to conduct himself how he thought a neighborhood watch person should. I also think Martin could have easily avoided Zimmerman if he had chosen to, but got upset about being followed and confronted Zimmerman about it. That confrontation let to the events as we know them.

Would lead me to interpret your answers as:

Do you think Zimmerman did anything wrong?
No, he was trying to conduct himself how he thought a neighbourhood watch person should.

Do you think Trayvon did anything wrong?
Yes, he could have easily avoided Zimmerman if he had chosen to, but got upset about being followed and confronted Zimmerman about it. That confrontation let to the events as we know them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your opinion on the matter? Just curious, no follow-up or anything, your opinion is your opinion, I can't and am not going to argue it isn't. Just interested in the way you worded it.

 

[warpus]

Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain, so it was his "job" persay to look for suspicious behavior in his neighborhood. Should he have followed Martin? Maybe not, but his actions are somewhat explained by his neighborhood watch position.

I also did not know this. But I wonder if M was actually behaving suspiciously, or whether he was only followed because he was black and hooded?

 

[Buddhafish]

Probably only because he was black and hooded.

But that's because that was the profile of someone committing robberies in the neighborhood. So since Martin matched that description, that automatically made him suspicious to Zimmerman, not because of his actions but because of someone else's with a similar build to him.

Whether Martin was acting suspiciously or not, Zimmerman could've seen it as suspicious based on his state of thinking and context of the situation (night, rainy).

 

[Berzerker]

M was acting "suspiciously" - he was loitering in the rain and then approached him while he was in his vehicle and then ran off

we got Z on tape, he describes M's behavior and it was enough to attract the attn of neighborhood watch volunteers.

if people wanna accuse Z of racial profiling they need to show he called the cops on black people in general, it would seem the prosecution already explored that possibility and it didn't pan out.

 

[Hygro]

There's no such thing as trespassing a gated community.

 

[Bamspeedy]

There's no such thing as trespassing a gated community.

He was an invited visitor to someone who lived there so he wasn't trespassing even if there was or is such a thing as trespassing in a gated community. Doesn't mean Zimmerman knew that.

What is the difference between "trying to find out what direction one went" and "stalking"?
EDIT: JohnRM answered the OP for me.

I guess I need to explain that better. What I mean for trying to find what direction Martin went, it was to follow at a far distance and be able to tell the police where he went. What I meant by stalking was following Martin at a closer distance as if waiting for on opportunity to jump him.

 

[Luckymoose]

Let me lay out my cards here: I'm having a really hard time seeing the other side of this case. I can see the other side, legally, as it's been decided; I cannot see why people actually think GZ is completely innocent. Without a clear answer, a very convenient answer is that a lot of the antipathy towards Trayvon Martin is latent bias / people fearing being 'railroaded' like GZ was. I don't want to think this is the case, so I need to understand where you all are coming from.

Before we continue, I want to outline the format of this thread. This is not to be a debate. It's question and answer. I'm not interested in convincing anyone, on either side, they're wrong. There are other threads for that. Rather, I want to know why people think whatever. If you disagree with something someone has said, please be civil.

Do not limit answers to evidence that was presented at trial. This is your opinion and opinions don't meet the same standard as reasonable doubt.

So I'd like to start with a few questions:

1: Do you think what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was a tragedy?

2: Do you think GZ did anything wrong?

3: Do you think Trayvon did anything wrong?

4: Do you think there has been a lot (not minor outliers) of racially tinged language used in defense of GZ?

5: Why do you think people are disappointed by the verdict?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

 

[Patroklos]

I also did not know this. But I wonder if M was actually behaving suspiciously, or whether he was only followed because he was black and hooded?

Hosestly, if you lived in a place with controlled access and saw someone you didn't know, was dressed in dark clothes In a fashion that conceals his head/face, at night, in the rain, and are already alerted that the said community is suffering from burglary incidents does it seem unreasonable that Martin looked suspicious? Then note Zimmerman was performing a specific function to report suspicious activity.

If you can answer that honestly, and you will note Zimmerman said nothing about race even though the burglary suspects were described as black until the dispatcher specifically asked, how exactly can you conclude it was a racial profile. Remember that all that happened BEFORE he left the truck.

Examine the above. Even if you think all a neighborhood watch member should do is observe and report up tot hat point nothing he did was unreasonable which negates all claims of race profiling used to muddy the waters later.

Does anyone know the legal authority of a security guard over any other citizen? I ask because I bet given the above you would expect a security guard to approach and see what's up with such a person in those circumstances and I bet such a security guard and Zimmerman share the same police powers. None. There is no evidence Zimmerman assumed any police powers anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

It may seem like a nitpick to you, but for my interpretation of your answer it's rather an important nuance as I'll explain. You said: someone as in singular. That combined with the follow-up


Would lead me to interpret your answers as:

Do you think Zimmerman did anything wrong?
No, he was trying to conduct himself how he thought a neighbourhood watch person should.

Do you think Trayvon did anything wrong?
Yes, he could have easily avoided Zimmerman if he had chosen to, but got upset about being followed and confronted Zimmerman about it. That confrontation let to the events as we know them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your opinion on the matter? Just curious, no follow-up or anything, your opinion is your opinion, I can't and am not going to argue it isn't. Just interested in the way you worded it.

Close. For the record, given my chosen career, I would generally interpret 'wrong' as 'unlawful'. Given the result and the portrayal of the facts as we know them via the trial, if the ongoing premise is that M assaulted Z resulting in Z defending himself with his weapon, then your interpretation above is accurate.

Do I think Z could have done things differently resulting in no one being killed? Sure. But if wishes were fishes we would all cast nets.

 

[JohnRM]

As it has already been said, it is apparently true that Martin was actually staying with someone in the community. Therefor, I retract my statement with regard to trespassing. I was only told that he didn't live there, but was "passing through" which I understood to mean something entirely different than what was intended. My bad.

 

[emzie]

I think one thing that's being overlooked is that a lot of people (or maybe just me, but I like to think I have somewhat common thoughts) aren't really upset by the verdict but by the case. And in this, Zimmerman is actually just, fairly or not, a personification of wider issues in America today, issues that some seem to be willfully ignorant of.

I asked about the racial overtones being used by some of GZ's defenders because it gets to the core of the issue: there is a still-present double standard in American society and it's institutional. I'm not saying that Zimmerman himself is a racist (biased, sure, but who isn't?) but rather, this case came to encapsulate everything unfair about American society to many people. So, again in fair or not, Zimmerman's acquittal was symbolic.

I question if many white Americans have ever actually wondered what life is like for black men. While you might think opportunities are the same, do you really think the experience is the same? I'm going to paraphrase a cousin of mine on this: You're not allowed to get angry. If you get angry, you come across as scary. You have to be conscious about how you're being perceived, because you're held to a different standard.

That's the racial side of this. It's not that Zimmerman wants to be a Klan member, but it's that Zimmerman likely made a not-too-uncommon judgement about a dark-skinned kid in his neighbourhood. Trayvon's death is just a stark reminder that, yeah, you best do your best to look less threatening.

It doesn't help when his brother calls Trayvon a gun-running dope fiend and asks why blacks are so violent. It doesn't help when his lawyer makes a crass remark that had Zimmerman been black, this wouldn't've made it to trial (I don't care if it's true, it was a crass thing to say).

The second factor is the institutionalized nature of disenfranchisement. There was a quote earlier in this thread that I really liked:

The justice system worked. Miami Marlins outfielder Bryan Petersen said it best, "If you trusted the justice system to find a man guilty, you must trust it when it finds a man not guilty, or it's just partiality you seek." That pretty much sums it up for me.

but it misses the point that many blacks in America don't trust the justice system to find a man guilty in the first place. The justice system, not through nefarious design (or so I hope) does screw over blacks disproportionately, regardless of the crime rate between blacks and whites: more likely to be arrested, more likely to face more serious charges, more likely to be poor and rely on public defenders.

Again, Zimmerman isn't responsible for any of this, but he became the face of it. It might not have been fair, but that's where a lot of disappointment stems from. Zimmerman might not have been guilty, but the system is seriously screwed up and it's not being addressed.

 

[emzie]

Man, I really hedged with that post.

 

[bhsup]

But should any one case ever be about some wider nebulous issue? That's totally unfair to the defendant who cannot have any racial motives actually pinned on him. If others find it unfair that he wasn't judged for all of society, then frankly they can suck it because they don't deserve to have some sort of societal justice meted out against an individual.

 

[emzie]

But should any one case ever be about some wider nebulous issue? That's totally unfair to the defendant who cannot have any racial motives actually pinned on him. If others find it unfair that he wasn't judged for all of society, then frankly they can suck it because they don't deserve to have some sort of societal justice meted out against an individual.

I didn't say it was fair. I said disappointment stems from that. A lot of people defending Zimmerman claim to not see where race comes into play. I'm trying to explain that it does, even if it didn't for Zimmerman.

And some of it stems from the fact that many of us feel Zimmerman is morally culpable of not legally guilty. But that's something else.

 

[Patroklos]

I didn't say it was fair. I said disappointment stems from that. A lot of people defending Zimmerman claim to not see where race comes into play. I'm trying to explain that it does, even if it didn't for Zimmerman.

You are not describing where race comes into play, you are describing where self fulfilling prophecies come into play. If there are so many actual race related incidents out there why are they so rarely national news? Instead we drummed up things get like this where the significance fails to meet what was wished into it to suppor said prophecies.

Is that because there is no racism? Nope. I think it's because racism simply isn't the great evil of our day, not even close, and can't feed into the self created fantasies of those who rely on it either as habit, excuse or decoy . Which is at complete odds with traditional black leadership who uses racism as the threat to maintain power, their narrative has remained unchanged since 1965.

Which is sad because I again don't think racism isn't a problem and constantly hunting for grandios Rodney King repeats feeds into the narrative that nothing ever changes so why try. Reality speaks to dramatic change and apathy prevents a whole community for buckling down and tackling the more insipid and entrenched problems that are not going to solved with marches or protests but hard mind numbingly boring and patient work on the small scale nationwide, alot of it entirely within their own communities.

And some of it stems from the fact that many of us feel Zimmerman is morally culpable of not legally guilty. But that's something else.

Which so far nobody has been able to support.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He was an invited visitor to someone who lived there so he wasn't trespassing even if there was or is such a thing as trespassing in a gated community. Doesn't mean Zimmerman knew that.

Of course he knew that. If he hadn't, he would have told the police another black teen was trespassing. Zimmerman isn't the brightest card in the racially profiling deck, but he isn't stupid.

 

[timtofly]

Man, I really hedged with that post.

Does that mean the question and answer section is over?

 

[emzie]

Does that mean the question and answer section is over?

Not really. I'd still like to have a civil discussion that's not focused on why the other person is wrong, but why we believe what we do about this case. Ideally this would be positive statements, "I think that..." not accusatory statements / challenging statements. I encourage dialogue here.

 

[AlpsStranger]

My sincere opinion?

Okay, I am not really a Zimmerman "defender." I honestly never took the case that seriously. I viewed it as an unfortunate incident and simply made a note of it. I realize that may come across as offensive on some levels, but that's the truth.

Now that it's over I'm not sure how to feel. It seems entirely reasonable from a purely legal standpoint ( from what I've read ) and it's hard to get too worked up about it. OJ and Casey Anthony also got off, after all.

That said, from a selfish perspective, I really wish Zimmerman would have been nailed to the wall. It would probably not have been fair from a legal perspective, but it would've calmed things down a lot. Who knows what kind of brouhaha the not guilty verdict will touch off?

Still, to quote president Obama:

And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.

That has to be the important thing at the end of the day, or we may as well just burn the constitution and start the show trials. Are we even going to try to be America anymore, or are we just going to convict based on MSNBC and Facebook polls?

EDIT: The overwhelming desire to corrupt/circumvent the law of the land for "better outcomes" is pretty much why I am an independent/non-voter now. I'm sure as hell not going to vote Republican, but I'm not going on a leftist crusade either. I'm just going to live what's left of my life, make damn sure I never have kids, and watch the whole thing evolve/unravel/burn down ( or whatever else happens. )