Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Timsup2nothin]

If Zimmerman wanted to kill people he'd have joined the police

He tried They wouldn't have him because they recognized that he so obviously just wanted to kill people that they'd have a hard time covering for him.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Aren't there police officers who caused the death of more than one person?
Zimmerman, by now, is not useful in the overall context, imo. One person, whose life already is practically over anyway (hiding/outcast). Police officers killing are a more... "live" issue.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A paragraph was too long to read? A sentence was too long? You can only read 3 words before typing out a response?

I read your whole post, and it seems like you should know that given my response. The TL;DR was directed at my post not yours. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It was another way of saying "For anyone who doesn't care to hear me go on about the definition of stalking and the other tangents, the main point/bottom line of my response to the entire post is this..." Alot of your post is just misdirected outrage over the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of my using "TL;DR" so I'll skip that...

Martin ran and hid and then he watched Zimmerman 'run' by. Martin talked with a friend on the phone and saw Zimmerman coming back a couple minutes later. Martin confronted Zimmerman. We know that because Martin's friend was still on the phone with him and she heard Martin asking Zimmerman to justify his presence. There is no evidence Zimmerman was 'stalking' Martin, he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who followed a suspicious person a very short distance to see if they took a turn down a path or street heading for an entrance.

First, about the bolded. You have defined Trayvon as "a suspicious person". I reject that premise outright. Trayvon was not "a suspicious person" he was a completely innocent teenager, who was walking down the street minding his own business. What is your basis for calling him "a suspicious person"? And by suspicious... I am not looking for another derailment into definitions of words. Obviously suspicious is a sliding scale. What I want to know is what made him suspicious enough to warrant getting out of your car with a gun, prepared to use deadly force?

Zimmerman was acting in an objectively and subjectively threatening way. Objectively, because an unknown person following you is threatening behavior. Subjectively, because Zimmerman was armed, which means he was anticipating and preparing to use deadly force. So even from Zimmerman's subjective position he intended to pose a threat to Trayvon. Now Trayvon didn't know for sure whether Zimmerman was carrying a gun, but he did detect that Zimmerman was following him, which was enough objective evidence of Zimmerman's subjective intent to pose a threat to him, so Trayvon tried to evade Zimmerman. However, Zimmerman started looking for Trayvon, and Trayvon decided to change his response to the persistent objective threat that Zimmerman posed from running and hiding from the threat into confronting the threat. Essentially, he went from "flight" into "fight", either of which is a normal response to being threatened.

The position you seem to be taking is that the blame is on Trayvon because he was wrong to switch his response from 'run" into "confront", but that ignores that Zimmerman was the one who engaged in the initial threatening behavior that placed Trayvon in the position of having to make a "fight or flight" call in the first place. And it seems like your claimed justification for excusing Zimmerman is that he is a neighborhood watch volunteer. But that isn't logical is it? Because Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was a volunteer for the neighborhood watch. All he knew was that Zimmerman was a person acting in a threatening manner towards him. Zimmerman on the other hand, knew that Trayvon was a guy walking down the street minding his own business. He knew that Trayvon was not committing any crimes as he was watching him.

Now if Zimmerman believes that any person being in his neighborhood that he himself doesn't know is automatically suspicious, to the level that he needs to follow them with a gun to see what they're up to, just because he himself subjectively doesn't know them... that's a completely unreasonable, indefensible attitude. So there has to be more than "Trayvon was a stranger" to explain his suspicion. "There were burglaries" is not remotely a justification for suspicion, because Trayvon wasn't committing any burglaries, nor was he doing anything that was indicative of being a burglar, he wasn't peeking in peoples windows or carrying burglar's tools, or fiddling with people's doors. Now if the justification is "he's a big black guy in my neighborhood", that makes perfect sense. I am well aware that many people consider black strangers, particularly large, young, black male strangers as positively terrifying, and suspicious by default. But now we are admitting that Zimmerman's justification was a racist justification, which I suspect you aren't willing to do (as you are aware that a racist justification isn't really a justification at all but more like an explanation).

 

[Sommerswerd]

If your argument is based on what Martin felt, then by your own logic Zimmerman was not only justified in following him, he would have been justified in pulling his gun and making a citizen's arrest if he felt Martin was a burglar. Now here's the problem with your argument, Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him and Zimmerman responded by asking what Martin was doing in the neighborhood. That is not a question a stalker would ask.

First, your'e strawmanning an argument and then attacking your own strawman. My argument isn't primarily based on how Trayvon felt, its based on what Zimmerman did. Second, you're last statement "That's not a question a..." is blatantly false and I reject it outright. I have no idea what you base such an assumption on, but you're wrong.

If Martin thought he was a stalker intent on violence he wouldn't have come out of hiding much less gotten in the 'stalker's' face to confront him.

Also blatantly wrong. Not sure what you base this assumption on. It is perfectly natural to confront threats that we are afraid of, often violently. Think of it another way... If I said "Zimmerman was obviously scared of Trayvon because he got his gun. But If Zimmerman was so scared as to need a gun, why would he follow him, or get out of the car? Obviously he wasn't scared of him if he confronted him"... You would see this is wrong. Clearly people confront people that they are afraid of.

Did Zimmerman follow other black people around? Of course not, some of the residents who knew him were black.

Can you see that the statement in the second sentence does not prove (and is frankly irrelevant to) the question you asked in the first sentence? This is basically a variation of the old, discredited, but still oft used "I'm not racist cause I have black friends argument". And that's your point right? That Zimmerman wasn't acting in that threatening manner towards Trayvon because of race right? But then immediately after you say...

The people suspected of burglarizing the neighborhood were young black males, Martin was a young black male loitering at the community mailboxes, thats why he drew Zimmerman's attention.

which is your stone cold admission that Zimmerman's motive for threatening Trayvon was based on his race. Don't you see that?

And forget about that for a second... "the people suspected" that the burglaries were committed by black guys... Yeah Duh! Of course they did, because young black males are always suspected. The fact that there were supposedly some burglaries and people in the neighborhood were saying "I bet it was some black guys" or "I saw a black guy around that day I bet it was the black guy who did it" ... isn't remotely evidence that the burglaries were actually committed by black guys. That's just the normal racist assumption that people always make in these situations... "black people did it." So a burglary happens, everyone assumes "some black guys must have done it", and from then on, any black guy you see in the neighborhood, you're justified in getting your gun and following him around, prepared to use deadly force... That sounds OK to you? And let's assume for sake of discussion it actually was black guys... again, that means from now on you are justified going after any black person we see with a gun and demanding that they explain to you what they're doing in this neighborhood? That sounds OK to you?

Now, what exactly was stealthy or silent about Zimmerman? It was Martin who was hiding and it was Martin who came out of hiding to surprise Zimmerman. If you're gonna call someone a stalker, identify the person who hid before attacking someone else.

The bolded is another strawman. In fact this whole segment is just doubling up on the tangential stuff. I already gave you the definition of stalking. Zimmerman clearly fits.

Zimmerman stood trial for murder and legal definitions dont matter?

OJ stood trial for murder and was acquitted. I imagine that matters about as much to you as Zimmerman's acquittal matters to me. Fair enough?

 

[Kyriakos]

^But if "people with beards were suspected of burgarizing the neighborhood" would it be bias against people with beards to be alarmed by any beardo in that location, or more of a tie to info given? (not examining if the info was correct, but the claim it is evident racism).

That said, i agree that given black people are obviously numerous, it is unfair to view suspects just tied to being black and young.

Anyway, Zimmerman is old news, imo.

 

[Ryika]

I mean, there's two different types of "based on his skin color".

One is "based on his skin color, because he is prejudiced against that skin color", and one is "based on his skin color, because a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood".

One is based on racism, the other one is not. At least not directly, indirectly racist prejudice can of course still be the reason for why Zimmerman found it reasonable to go after Martin.

That doesn't change that the two are fundamentally different though.

If the police gets a report that "a white person has robbed a liquor store", and then proceeds to investigate non-white people who have alcohol with them, then everybody would be irritated by that.
Skin color is an attribute like any other with which you can check whether a person can be the perpetrator of a crime if it's actually based on information that is available of the subject, and not on prejudice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, there's two different types of "based on his skin color".

One is "based on his skin color, because he is prejudiced against that skin color", and one is "based on his skin color, because a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood".

One is based on racism, the other one is not. At least not directly, indirectly racist prejudice can of course still be the reason for why Zimmerman found it reasonable to go after Martin.

That doesn't change that the two are fundamentally different though.

If the police gets a report that "a white person has robbed a liquor store", and then proceeds to investigate non-white people who have alcohol with them, then everybody would be irritated by that.
Skin color is an attribute like any other with which you can check whether a person can be the perpetrator of a crime if it's actually based on information that is available of the subject, and not on prejudice.

I have a lot to say about this post but I don't have time to respond to it all right now. First of all, it is a very thoughtful post full of substantive arguments/observations (as opposed to tangential stuff about word definitions and such), so thanks for that... @Kyriakos - You too Kyr, but since you keep saying you don't want to talk about Zimmerman I won't respond to you

Anyway @Ryika - One quick comment I wanted to make before I run out of the house is that the statement "a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood" is a strawman if no such persons were actually seen buglarizing houses or similarly "causing trouble" and its just the reflexive tendancy to say "must have been some black guys" at play... Don't you agree?

Also, what about me applying the "a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood" to the police. I mean I've seen on the news "a person of the same skin color (ie white), with attributes identical (ie police officer in police uniform) to the person has been seen causing trouble (ie killing people) in that neighborhood"... do I get to follow them with guns and shoot them if they confront me?

 

[Ryika]

Anyway @Ryika - One quick comment I wanted to make before I run out of the house is that the statement "a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood" is a strawman if no such persons were actually seen buglarizing houses or similarly "causing trouble" and its just the reflexive tendancy to say "must have been some black guys" at play... Don't you agree?

Well, I don't think it's a strawman, it simply wouldn't apply to the case.

Note that my example was neutral, I wasn't trying to apply it to the Zimmerman-case, I was just giving it as an explanation because that seemed to be the issue where both of you weren't really talking about the same thing. Berzerker clearly thinks that Zimmerman had good reasons to believe that the people who has done the burglaries are black, so from that perspective being more vary of suspicious black individuals would make sense.

Of course, whether Berzerker is right to think that Zimmerman had good reasons is the real question here. I've looked into it, but couldn't really find too much information about it. It has been confirmed that there have been burglaries and other crimes in the neighborhood in the months leading up to the event, but whether there was concrete evidence that the burglars were black... I can't find any information about that. It's interesting that none of the major news sites seem to have had an interest to look into this.

The only thing I can really find is what's also written on Wikipedia:

"During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012, shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males.

According to friends and neighbors of Zimmerman, three weeks prior to the shooting on February 2, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time a new laptop and some gold jewelry was stolen from her home. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man whom Zimmerman identified as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2."

If this part is true, then this does hint at the possibility that Zimmerman was right about one of the burglars, but of course he was already suspecting the perpetrators to be black and reporting black guys that he found suspicious before that, so that still doesn't answer the question of whether his singling out of one skin color was based on data, or based on prejudice and just happened to be correct in that one case.

In the end I can't tell whether he was justified or prejudiced, simply because I can't find information about whether there was clear evidence of the perpetrators of the crimes that were reported leading up to the event were black.

I do think going only be skin color is a pretty weak excuse to assume somebody's guilty though. However, according to Zimmerman, Martin was acting suspicious, and looking into houses, as if he was checking out targets for a burglary. I do find these claims questionable , because according to his sister(?) he was on his way home from somewhere, which means he had a reason to be walking through there, and no evidence for his involvement in any crimes in the neighborhood has been found. Zimmerman on the other hand was known to be a vigilante who constantly reported people he suspected of crimes. So in the end... well again, I don't know how justified he was with his assumptions.

Also, what about me applying the "a person of that same skin color, with attributes identical to the person has been seen causing trouble in that neighborhood" to the police. I mean I've seen on the news "a person of the same skin color (ie white), with attributes identical (ie police officer in police uniform) to the person has been seen causing trouble (ie killing people) in that neighborhood"... do I get to follow them with guns and shoot them if they confront me?

Well, that's not an accurate summary of the events as they're believed to have happened by the court that has evaluated all the evidence, including the wounds Zimmerman had, and a fracture that Martin had on his finger.

According to the court, the most likely turn of events is that Martin, after having been followed for a while, has jumped Zimmerman and attacked him, and if that's what happened, then he had the right to shoot him in self-defense.

It still sounds to me that he was being overly zealous and probably shouldn't have been following him around just because he really wanted for him to "not get away" with the crimes he thought he's possibly about to commit, but as far as I can tell, what he did was perfectly within the law. Martin was the one who overstepped the boundaries of the law by actually causing bodily harm to Zimmerman. (This is again only true if the court's summary of the events is correct of course, there are a lot of assumptions in all of this to fill gaps.)

And yes, other than that, the race of the perpetrator and victim don't change a thing. Even the race-swapped version where a black guy follows a white guy, gets jumped and shoots the white guy in self-defense would be the exact same thing in my opinion. Depending on how racially charged the police is, the case might or might not have ended differently with the skin color swap, but the morality of the issue is exactly the same.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Suspect is white, here's the description, be on the lookout for people who look like that.
Suspect is black, be suspicious of black people.

That piece of 'logic' has been used by innumerable law enforcement departments to get around the law that requires them to have justifiable cause to detain people, or skulk around following them. By never bothering with any further description they can use "well a black person is a suspect in a crime, so I can follow this black person here, stop them and question them, harass them any way that I feel like" pretty much any time. Good lawyers have made the case that it is discriminatory more times than I can count, but cops still try to get away with it every day.

And saying "well the neighborhood had had burglaries by black people so Zimmerman gets to creep after any black person that comes along" is in the exact same vein.

By the way, I doubt you will find anyone who has been through neighborhood watch training that won't say they were told anything other than NEVER approach someone you think is suspicious. The whole "well he's neighborhood watch so he's supposed to be creeping after people" is total BS.

 

[Ryika]

Assuming that post was directed at me:

That piece of 'logic' has been used by innumerable law enforcement departments to get around the law that requires them to have justifiable cause to detain people, or skulk around following them. By never bothering with any further description they can use "well a black person is a suspect in a crime, so I can follow this black person here, stop them and question them, harass them any way that I feel like" pretty much any time. Good lawyers have made the case that it is discriminatory more times than I can count, but cops still try to get away with it every day.

Agreed, but that's exactly why I wrote:
"One is based on racism, the other one is not. At least not directly, indirectly racist prejudice can of course still be the reason for why Zimmerman found it reasonable to go after Martin."
It can be used that way, but it's not automatically racist because it can be used that way.

In the case of Zimmerman, if it was known that black individuals have committed crime in that area, then it is perfectly normal for Zimmerman to take note of an unknown black person in the neighborhood. Of course it stops being reasonable when you then look at that person, see them do nothing suspicious, still think they're up to no good and start following them only based on their skin color.

By the way, I doubt you will find anyone who has been through neighborhood watch training that won't say they were told anything other than NEVER approach someone you think is suspicious. The whole "well he's neighborhood watch so he's supposed to be creeping after people" is total BS.

Agreed again. I mean, it's pretty clear that Zimmerman was a person who was overly vigilant, that's not only evident because of the way he went after Martin because he thought "they always get away with it" ("it" being the burglaries), but also because of the many calls to the police that he made for sometimes really petty things in the years prior to the incident.

But none of that justifies attacking him, and none of that makes him shooting Martin in self-defense a crime.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Assuming that post was directed at me:

It was more of a generalization.

Zimmerman shooting Martin wasn't a crime, as evidenced by the lack of a conviction under Florida law. That's not a justification for Zimmerman, it is an indictment of Florida law. In Florida, if I instigate a situation and that situation gets physical I am under no obligation to make any effort to deescalate it or remove myself from it or get out of it in any way whatsoever before "legally resorting to deadly force because I feared for my life." If I lived in Florida god only knows how many idiots I'd have killed by now.

That aside, the "there's a black suspect wanted and since all blacks look alike" logic is pretty despicable, and at least in the US has been found repeatedly to be a violation of equal protection as specified in the constitution. It would be unconstitutional for a COP to say "there have been crimes in the neighborhood by blacks, and since you are black you're a suspect" so it is not really an acceptable defense for a neighborhood watch either.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, you got into it by repeatedly flip flopping...the rest of us got into it by having the misfortune of you posting in the thread.

I said Zimmerman wasn't watching Martin after losing him in the complex. How is that a flip flop? If you accuse someone of that and they defend them self, you started the debate. If you then accuse them of derailment because you started the debate you'd be guilty of hypocrisy too. Welcome to Sommersworld.

I read your whole post, and it seems like you should know that given my response.

What response? You took the first 3 words (Zimmerman wasn't watching) out of the paragraph to contrast them with an earlier comment about Zimmerman watching Martin and called it a flip flop. The paragraph explained Zimmerman wasn't watching Martin after he ran off into the complex. You didn't respond to that, you removed it from the quote.

You have defined Trayvon as "a suspicious person". I reject that premise outright. Trayvon was not "a suspicious person" he was a completely innocent teenager, who was walking down the street minding his own business. What is your basis for calling him "a suspicious person"?

I already explained why he was suspicious

What I want to know is what made him suspicious enough to warrant getting out of your car with a gun, prepared to use deadly force?

He wasn't prepared, his gun was in a holster on his hip and stayed there until after he was on the ground getting beat up.

Now Trayvon didn't know for sure whether Zimmerman was carrying a gun, but he did detect that Zimmerman was following him, which was enough objective evidence of Zimmerman's subjective intent to pose a threat to him, so Trayvon tried to evade Zimmerman. However, Zimmerman started looking for Trayvon, and Trayvon decided to change his response to the persistent objective threat that Zimmerman posed from running and hiding from the threat into confronting the threat. Essentially, he went from "flight" into "fight", either of which is a normal response to being threatened.

Martin hid and Zimmerman wandered off out of his sight. He didn't flee, he didn't run the other way, or any way, he remained hidden talking to his friend on the phone. Eventually Zimmerman came back heading for his truck and Martin came out of hiding and got in his face - why are you following me, what are you doing in the neighborhood. Zimmerman said Martin asked if he had a problem, he said no and Martin said you do now and he attacked. Those are not the actions of someone fearing a "stalker", those are the actions of someone pissed off at being watched as if they were a criminal. Not even stand your ground proponents would argue people can attack others for asking why they're in the neighborhood.

The position you seem to be taking is that the blame is on Trayvon because he was wrong to switch his response from 'run" into "confront", but that ignores that Zimmerman was the one who engaged in the initial threatening behavior that placed Trayvon in the position of having to make a "fight or flight" call in the first place.

The blame is on Martin because he attacked a neighborhood watch volunteer. And it was Martin who 'triggered' all this by behaving suspiciously before Zimmerman even got out of his vehicle.

And it seems like your claimed justification for excusing Zimmerman is that he is a neighborhood watch volunteer. But that isn't logical is it? Because Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was a volunteer for the neighborhood watch. All he knew was that Zimmerman was a person acting in a threatening manner towards him. Zimmerman on the other hand, knew that Trayvon was a guy walking down the street minding his own business. He knew that Trayvon was not committing any crimes as he was watching him.

Martin wasn't walking down the street. And if Martin was justified based on what you think he believed, then Zimmerman would be justified pulling his gun and arresting Martin if he thought he might be a burglar. Well, if you were consistent anyway. He might have thought the crime already happened, or was about to when he showed up to watch. Or maybe Martin was looking for places to rob later. If Martin committed a crime while Zimmerman was watching, that would be more than merely suspicious.

First, your'e strawmanning an argument and then attacking your own strawman. My argument isn't primarily based on how Trayvon felt, its based on what Zimmerman did.

So its now a straw man if I respond to your non-primary arguments? You just make this up as you go...

Second, you're last statement "That's not a question a..." is blatantly false and I reject it outright. I have no idea what you base such an assumption on, but you're wrong. Also blatantly wrong. Not sure what you base this assumption on.

Well, because the only people who ever asked me what I was doing in a strange neighborhood were cops, security or the people who lived there. And they dont become stalkers for watching to see where I'm headed, not even if they follow me when I engage in suspicious behavior.

It is perfectly natural to confront threats that we are afraid of, often violently.

Seems to me the 'natural' response to a threat depends on the circumstances. If the 'threat' doesn't know where you are because you're hiding, then the natural response is to remain hidden. It is not get in their face and start asking questions.

Think of it another way... If I said "Zimmerman was obviously scared of Trayvon because he got his gun. But If Zimmerman was so scared as to need a gun, why would he follow him, or get out of the car? Obviously he wasn't scared of him if he confronted him"...

Zimmerman wasn't trying to confront Martin, he got out to see if he ran for an entrance so he could tell the police. I'm sure both were concerned, so what? Zimmerman didn't attack Martin... and he had a gun.

Can you see that the statement in the second sentence does not prove (and is frankly irrelevant to) the question you asked in the first sentence? This is basically a variation of the old, discredited, but still oft used "I'm not racist cause I have black friends argument". And that's your point right? That Zimmerman wasn't acting in that threatening manner towards Trayvon because of race right? But then immediately after you say... which is your stone cold admission that Zimmerman's motive for threatening Trayvon was based on his race. Don't you see that?

I can see you didn't answer the question. You said Zimmerman followed Martin because:

one of the reasons that Zimmerman acted in this threatening manner towards Trayvon is because Trayvon was black, and Zimmerman clearly harbours the racist belief that black people are inherently suspicious, because of their race.

Both my question and the 2nd comment were designed to show he did not follow people because they were black and inherently suspicious. He had black neighbors, did he follow them? How about black women or old men? To our knowledge he followed only Martin and did so because he was behaving suspiciously (and fit the profile of the burglars). You'd know this if you listened to the tape, Zimmerman was describing Martin's behavior to the dispatcher as it happened.

And let's assume for sake of discussion it actually was black guys... again, that means from now on you are justified going after any black person we see with a gun and demanding that they explain to you what they're doing in this neighborhood?

It was Martin who 'demanded' Zimmerman justify his presence, and Zimmerman didn't go after "any black person", he watched somebody behaving suspiciously who fit the profile of people responsible for a rash of burglaries. Zimmerman's "crime" was getting out to see where he ran off to and getting attacked for his effort.

The bolded

is another strawman. In fact this whole segment is just doubling up on the tangential stuff. I already gave you the definition of stalking. Zimmerman clearly fits. OJ stood trial for murder and was acquitted. I imagine that matters about as much to you as Zimmerman's acquittal matters to me. Fair enough?

The only reason I mentioned the jury acquittal is because Tim said I was unique in my belief Martin's attack was unjustified. And now you're accusing me of a straw man because I quoted the definition of stalking posted by you? Maybe you should have read the definition first, we could have avoided all this stalking nonsense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

<---really long denial about how you never said Zimmerman was watching and following except for all the times you said he was watching and following--->

Is there a point in here somewhere? If so could you maybe get to it in a sentence or two?

 

[Berzerker]

Now you're fabricating quotes... Isn't that against forum rules? This is what I said:

Zimmerman wasn't watching or 'stalking' anything, he didn't know where Martin was and thought he ran off in the direction of a rear entrance and even told the cops that before Martin attacked him. So he headed back to his truck and was intercepted by Martin. He got attacked, knocked to the ground, and Martin was on top beating him before the gun entered the picture. All facts matter...

Before losing Martin, Zimmerman was watching him... How is that a flip flop?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Clipping for brevity is not fabricating.

 

[Berzerker]

where did you 'clip' that from?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

where did you 'clip' that from?

It's just an observation. Much like it is just an observation that you have been remarkably inconsistent about this watching business that Zimmerman was (or wasn't, depending) doing. Just like you have been inconsistent about the following that he was (or wasn't, again depending) doing.

The whole "well, he wasn't following him at this particular moment so Martin should have just developed amnesia about the fact that he had been following him" is tortured logic, at best. If you are honestly saying that is what you've been working towards all this time I can't see why you put in the effort.

This interaction took place over a period of time. During that time:

Zimmerman followed a kid around in his car, and on foot. This is not in the "job description" of a neighborhood watch. It is very easy to see why someone would interpret this as basic creeper behavior. This makes Zimmerman at least in part responsible for the rest of the interaction. That makes no difference under the flawed laws of Florida.

Martin confronted a creeper who had been following him. Again, under Florida law this makes no difference of any kind.

Just like there is nothing I can say to support the idea that Zimmerman should have been convicted of a crime, there is no way to argue, from this case or any other, that Florida law doesn't have a gaping hole in it that a truckload of dead bodies could be driven through...and unfortunately Martin is one of those bodies. Because under Florida law nothing leading up to the shooting makes any difference. There is no requirement, as long as Zimmerman could convincingly say "I feared for my life when I used deadly force," that he have done anything else to qualify for 'self defense.'

Had Martin successfully bashed Zimmerman's head in he ALSO would qualify for the same defense, as long as he could convincingly say he feared for his life at the time he exercised deadly force. Since Zimmerman was following him around and had a gun there is no reason such a claim would be hard to believe.

Florida law could be simplified greatly by just acknowledging that it is winner take all. "I feared for my life, so I killed him" is all it takes. And who's gonna argue? The dead guy?

 

[KmDubya]

Had Martin successfully bashed Zimmerman's head in he ALSO would qualify for the same defense, as long as he could convincingly say he feared for his life at the time he exercised deadly force. Since Zimmerman was following him around and had a gun there is no reason such a claim would be hard to believe.

Florida law could be simplified greatly by just acknowledging that it is winner take all. "I feared for my life, so I killed him" is all it takes. And who's gonna argue? The dead guy?

So your saying that if Trayvon had successfully beaten Zimmerman to death he could have claimed 'self defence'?

How would that have gone?
Officer - 'What happened here?
Trayvon - 'Some guy followed me and I beat him to death'
Officer - 'Sounds like self defense to me. Had a case last week where a half dozen stalkers were killed following a guy up an escalator '

Your lack of understanding about the law explains how you came to personally experience aspects of the legal system that most of us are ignorant of.

 

[Ryika]

Well, even in German law it might count as self-defense, assuming he can make a good case and show that he felt threatened, and that an attack is the only safe way to neutralize that threat.

That's harder for him to prove without having any signs of violence being done to him. But because Zimmerman himself called the police, there is evidence that Martin WAS being followed, and the gun that Zimmerman was carrying - assuming it could have reasonably been visible to Martin - would also help him in that case.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Martin could probably get away with bashing Zimmerman's head in and then lying about it.

 

[Berzerker]

It's just an observation.

You fabricated a ridiculous quote and attributed it to me, thats a straw man. Well, its even worse, Sommers likes to play with straw too but he limits himself to editing his straw man, you just make up quotes.

Much like it is just an observation that you have been remarkably inconsistent about this watching business that Zimmerman was (or wasn't, depending) doing. Just like you have been inconsistent about the following that he was (or wasn't, again depending) doing.

Zimmerman was watching Martin, agreed? Martin ran and hid, agreed? Zimmerman was no longer watching him, agreed? Why is that inconsistent? If you "observed" me being inconsistent why do you have to invent quotes instead of using real ones?

The whole "well, he wasn't following him at this particular moment so Martin should have just developed amnesia about the fact that he had been following him" is tortured logic, at best. If you are honestly saying that is what you've been working towards all this time I can't see why you put in the effort.

And where did I say Martin should have developed amnesia? Why do you keep blaming me for your absurd arguments? I've explained this already, several people in this thread have argued Zimmerman defied the dispatcher's instruction to stop following. That is not true. Zimmerman had already lost Martin by the time he got that instruction and when he did he arranged to meet the cops back at his truck and thats where he was headed when Martin intercepted him. So it matters when Zimmerman stopped following Martin, it has nothing to do with amnesia.

This interaction took place over a period of time. During that time:

Zimmerman followed a kid around in his car, and on foot.

Why'd you end it there? Then what happened? You left out the part where Zimmerman lost Martin and was talking to the dispatcher about meeting the cops... There's yer brilliant flip flop. Zimmerman was in his vehicle when Martin ran down a path. Zimmerman saw him take that path but by the time he got out of his vehicle and started down the same path Martin was already out of sight. Hell, he might have lost sight of him before getting out of his truck. So Zimmerman went from watching Martin to wondering where the hell he went and telling the dispatcher he lost him, but he thought he was heading for the entrance.

There is no requirement, as long as Zimmerman could convincingly say "I feared for my life when I used deadly force," that he have done anything else to qualify for 'self defense.'

Gee, why could he convincingly say he feared for his life?

Had Martin successfully bashed Zimmerman's head in

Oh yeah, thats why...

Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin, not because he wasn't justified, but because he got ambushed. If a cop or security guard had justification to follow Martin, then so did a neighborhood watch volunteer (or you, or me, or any other neighbor). And if a cop saw Martin behaving like that, you know he'd do more than just watch and follow.