The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Martin got pissed and threw a punch. They ended up on the ground. Nothing here justifies shooting.

If it would justify a policeman shooting, Zimmerman was justified.

--Brant

I seem to be arguing with everyone, here. Brant, are you serious with the above? Any citizen has the same right as a civilian to shoot? Even cops need justification for discharge of weapon. We don't even know if it's self-defense. Repeat, IF the kid didn't do anything but give a punch, shooting is not justified.

I think you meant "policeman" not "civilian." The policeman has greater overall latitude in using deadly force, but an armed man on the ground getting punched pretty much equals it out. What we know about what happened and what we think we know and what we will ever know will all fall short of enough information to know what Zimmerman is really guilty of. The working assumption here, based in part on prosecution witness testimony, is he was on his back getting punched. It is known he was armed. I don't know, BTW, how you know that Martin gave "a punch" as opposed to punches.

Let's say--not especially apropos this case--that I am home-invaded by two armed teenagers plus on (armed) 12 yo "kid." This has happened in Tucson, but not to me. I have a 12 gauge tactical pump action shotgun and I kill them. (I do have this gun and I am quite capable of doing this.) How would you feel about me if this happened? How would you feel about whom I killed? Let's now consider three different scenarios. First, they are all white. Second, they are all Hispanic (or Mexican-Americans). Third, they are all black (very unlikely here in Tucson). I'm asking this because both you and Carol seem to put so much emotional bias into Zimmerman was wrong and Martin was. . . ? A "kid"? Are you aware that millions of American men are trained killers thanks to being in the armed forces and that many of them went to war and killed? They are killers, killers of human beings.

How would you feel about eating a steak if you were to see the cow transported to the slaughterhouse, killed and butchered and were given it for supper? Hamburger? Take Prince Harry--the guy photograhed in Las Vegas partying naked. He went to Afghanistan and killed people with little or no remorse at the controls of an Apache helicopter. The man is a seasoned killer. Now comes this in-between guy, Zimmerman, and you guys get hot and bothered? Animals kill animals and people kill people and animals and this has been going on as long as they've been on earth. I hope in a thousand years people killing people will be obsolete, but that day isn't today nor the rest of this century. Is Zimmerman only an excuse for revulsion--a whipping boy for those who otherwise insist on seeing our world with rose-tinted glasses?

--Brant

[caroljane]

As I have said before, and you know my biases, too much depends here onZimmerman's unsupported word, and I am not inclined to believe him. He was not especially truthful about his financial resources to the court while on bail, for example. I don't even believe his nose and head wounds were inflicted by Martin.

[ginny]

Freaken goddam double ditto.

Brant, I meant Zimmerman is a civilian with unsupported claim of self-defense.

[Selene]

I don't even believe his nose and head wounds were inflicted by Martin.

Carol:

As much as I love you, that is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever seen you post.

So, despite the one eye witness who saw Travon, on top, and, punching down at Zimmerman, you "believe" that Zimmerman, after shooting Travon, punched himself in the nose, breaking it, and then slammed his own head into the cement!

Got it, so it looked like this...

Now I understand...

A...

[caroljane]

I believe that it is known that under the stress of strong emotion, men have slammed their own heads into hard surfaces.

Also that in some murder cases, defendants have presented wounds which were proved to be self-inflicted.

Also that fearing death in battle, some soldiers have "accidentally" shot off their own toes or fingers.

[ginny]

Adam, I don't buy that scenario. However, how about the following:

Z, upon seeing M.: "Hey, you. What you doin' here? You got no business here.:

M. "Mind you own fuckin business."

Z., walking toward M. "You being an asshole?"

M. "What you want?"

Z. "Get off this property, asshole."

M gets pissed and punches Z. that fits with the broken nose.

Z topples to the ground. Get's small cuts on head. No evidence of gun if they're this close and M is able to punch.

M, still pissed, gets down for another punch. Fits with witnesses.

Z panics and fumbles for gun. Shoots.

Self-defense? Z started the argument. M retaliates with punches. Enough for some jailtime but not death.

[anthony]

Though it's irrational to dislike or avoid other people, collectively, on the basis of their race, how can it be illegal? However, it is fully rational to react with fear to any physical force, when you cannot have the prescience to know where and how that force will end. How much fear is enough fear to pull the trigger? I think it's disingenuous to condemn anyone for meeting force with superior force: why sacrifice oneself to the liberally-accepted notion of 'fair play'?

The only completely immoral motivation that Zimmerman could have had (I think) is to have deliberately set out to provoke a confrontation with Martin, or any black man - with the express purpose of shooting him. I can't believe that, and nor can any prosecution prove it. Hey, you don't have to approve of the guy's character to allow his defence of self-defence.

[BaalChatzaf]

Adam, I don't buy that scenario. However, how about the following:

Z, upon seeing M.: "Hey, you. What you doin' here? You got no business here.:

M. "Mind you own fuckin business."

Z., walking toward M. "You being an asshole?"

M. "What you want?"

Z. "Get off this property, asshole."

M gets pissed and punches Z. that fits with the broken nose.

Z topples to the ground. Get's small cuts on head. No evidence of gun if they're this close and M is able to punch.

M, still pissed, gets down for another punch. Fits with witnesses.

Z panics and fumbles for gun. Shoots.

Self-defense? Z started the argument. M retaliates with punches. Enough for some jailtime but not death.

Was Z in reasonable fear of being beaten to death or beaten to the point of serious injury?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ginny and Carol;

I'm sorry, perhaps you think that this is a fiction writing course, wherein we posit the what if scenarios to see if they will work in the novel you are both writing.

This is a murder trial wherein the prosecution has the burden of proof, beyond a shadow of doubt, as professor Gershowitz clearly stated in a post I made above, and they have not even come close to a preponderance [50.0001% ] of the evidence, to sustain their burden of proof.

You both can dance your dance of what if the x did y. However, you have no facts and the prosecution did not make their case in this trial.

A...

[ginny]

That's my point. No facts to prosecute. Too much doubt. Too many alternate scenarios. And who the heck is dancing.

[caroljane]

I don't even believe his nose and head wounds were inflicted by Martin.

Carol:

As much as I love you, that is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever seen you post.

So, despite the one eye witness who saw Travon, on top, and, punching down at Zimmerman, you "believe" that Zimmerman, after shooting Travon, punched himself in the nose, breaking it, and then slammed his own head into the cement!

Got it, so it looked like this...

Now I understand...

A...

Adam, as much as I love you also, my statement was not ignorant but cognizant of precedents and probabilities.

"Liar Liar" is an appropriate addition to a Zimmerman thread.

[Selene]

Adam, as much as I love you also, my statement was not ignorant but cognizant of precedents and probabilities.

"Liar Liar" is an appropriate addition to a Zimmerman thread.

So you did not understand that this is a court of law, not a complex of Unicorns with rose colored glasses.

Precedents deal with how prior courts have interpreted issues of fact and law.

A...

[caroljane]

The Christopher Vaughn case was one precedent. There was another, a Dr Kirk somebody, who was acquitted, in the minds of many wrongly.

[Selene]

The Christopher Vaughn case was one precedent. There was another, a Dr Kirk somebody, who was acquitted, in the minds of many wrongly.

Carol:

And each of these cases fact patterns bear on the Zimmerman fact pattern, or, State court charges how?

A....

[caroljane]

They bear on fact patterns, that killers have been shown to self-inflect wounds after killing people, in order to appear self-defending.

[Selene]

They bear on fact patterns, that killers have been shown to self-inflect wounds after killing people, in order to appear self-defending.

I got that.

However, in the case before the court, not one piece of evidence, or, testimony has been offered by the prosecution to assert that claim.

Therefore, for the purposes of this specific murder trial, your speculation is irrelevant.

[caroljane]

I know. The prosecution has not done a great job so far. And Z has had a year to perfect his story. When he testifies, he will be prepared for everything.

[Brant Gaede]

As I have said before, and you know my biases, too much depends here onZimmerman's unsupported word, and I am not inclined to believe him. He was not especially truthful about his financial resources to the court while on bail, for example. I don't even believe his nose and head wounds were inflicted by Martin.

Reasonable doubt, yes or no? "Here" is the trial. When it is over, if Z is acquitted, we'll have a foundation for further discussion. For instance, from what I understand Zimmerman was a busybody incompetent. What he needed was a baton so use of a gun might not have been necessary. More brain work and he would have stayed out of the situation enough so the cops could arrive and deal with it. However, I do not know he was a busybody incompetent.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I know. The prosecution has not done a great job so far. And Z has had a year to perfect his story. When he testifies, he will be prepared for everything.

Is he going to testify? Stupid if he does. The dead "kid" will upstage him for the same reason child actors upstage adult actors. Was Legend the movie in which the Will Smith character had a dog that got killed? When the dog got killed I lost interest in the movie. The reason there are over 6 billion people on earth is babies are soooo cute. We are wired to love them. (There are other reasons it'd be stupid to testify.)

--Brant

(doesn't extend to changing diapers)

[caroljane]

Stupid if he doesn't. \juries need to listen to and look at accused telling their own stories. As I have said, Z is appealing with the sad eyes and chipmunk cheeks.

Still who knows, it isn't over till the fat lady sings, and this jury is all ladies maybe thinking they look fat.

[Brant Gaede]

Freaken goddam double ditto.

Brant, I meant Zimmerman is a civilian with unsupported claim of self-defense.

The facial and head injuries support self defense. The witness who saw him on his back getting hit supports self defense.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Shootouts. Shootings. Knife killings. Beatings. Other manners of lethal mayhem. Take your choice.

Look at the news on any given weekend.

It's normally tagged with something like "Chicagoland."

Here's a quick example from a liberal publication (chosen as the first liberal site from a Google search as opposed to TheBlaze, etc.):

7 Dead, 41 Wounded in Chicago's Father's Day Weekend Shootings

Slate

If you want more, just Google something like:

Chicago weekend killings

... or something like that.

You'll get details galore if you are really interested in this.

In answer to your questions, I would say, "Yes."

To all of them.

btw - Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in America. Not gang control laws. Gun control laws. The gangs don't seem to mind at all...

Michael

Well, It's getting worse.

As the country hangs in thrall about the climax of the Trayvon and George show, State Representative Monique Davis here in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, is calling for the state police and National Guard to help with the butchery in Chicago.

Note that Davis, the one calling for enhanced government force, is a Democrat, not a Republican. In 2012, she was rated 0% by the NRA on gun rights (see here).

Ill. Rep Requests National Guard Help Stop Chicago Violence

July 10, 2013 7

CBS St. Louis

From the article:

Gun violence in Chicago is so severe that a state lawmaker wants state police and the National Guard to assist the local cops.

State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) is making the request.

“I am requesting with this press conference that Gov. Patrick Quinn order the Illinois National Guard (and) the Illinois State Police (to) come to Chicago and work with our mayor Ron (sic) Emanuel to provide safety for the children, especially,” she said at a news conference in Springfield.

Other state lawmakers accompanied Davis to recognize the severity of the problem, and the extent to which it carries beyond Chicago’s troubled neighborhoods to the entire city and other parts of the state, but not necessarily to concur with her solution.

Over the holiday weekend, 74 people were shot and 12 killed in Chicago, and Davis says the police don’t have the manpower to make arrests.

It comes to mind that each of those 74 people had names, families, dreams, histories, supporters, detractors, and so on. In other words, each killed person had a story that could be jazzed up just as much as the Trayvon and George Soap.

I bet you could even fit racism in there. Gun control definitely fits.

Boy, do we need storytellers in this world.

All that entertainment going to waste...

(That was unusual sarcasm coming from me.)

Michael

[caroljane]

Sure, gun control fits. Gun absence would fit better. Is there nowhere we cannot see evidence that it is not a good idea for the means of immediate, effective elimination of one's fellow citizens should not be universally available?

[Selene]

Sure, gun control fits. Gun absence would fit better. Is there nowhere we cannot see evidence that it is not a good idea for the means of immediate, effective elimination of one's fellow citizens should not be universally available?

Your right the world looks so much better through these rose colored glasses...

How's that working out?

A...

[ginny]

Did you take a condescending pill today.