The Goat Pen

This case, however, is about whether an unarmed teenager can engage an armed person — one who admits to having pursued him — in such a way that the teenager becomes responsible for his own death. "

Trayvon Martin was not on trial for his own death. His reponsibility is irrelevant except insofar as it cannot be proven compared to Zimmermans level of responsibility. This case was about whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered him, or was responsible for his death. Self defense covered both, no way to prove it wasn't self defense once witnesses testified there was a fight between the two. Maybe George went up and directly confronted and started the fight, but they didnt prove that. All they could show was that he was following him, possibly unreasonably.

Actually after reading that again, I guess I do agree that is what it's about. I just don't see that it's any question. Obviously there is a level of response to someone following you that elevates your level of responsibility. I have little doubt that if Martin had bashed in Zimmermans head instead, he would have faced charges too. And probably been acquitted just on the same level of lack of info and the fact that Zimmerman was armed this making it obvious self defense.

" I have little doubt that if Martin had bashed in Zimmermans head instead, he would have faced charges too. And probably been acquitted just on the same level of lack of info and the fact that Zimmerman was armed this making it obvious self defense."

I wonder how people would've felt about this case if that had happened?

Breaking my vow for this time...

aTm wrote:I have little doubt that if Martin had bashed in Zimmermans head instead, he would have faced charges too.

The thing is the Zimmerman case never would gone this far, and no charges would have been faced by GZ, if not for those "rabble rousers" (i.e. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) that constantly take flak on here (to an extent) and elsewhere by certain concerned citizens. So while you have little doubt Martin would have faced charges, I have total confidence that this case would not have reached to the level of charges against GZ if not for the outcry of outside forces due to the initial classification of "justifiable" that was brought by the Sanford PD.

hedge wrote:" I have little doubt that if Martin had bashed in Zimmermans head instead, he would have faced charges too. And probably been acquitted just on the same level of lack of info and the fact that Zimmerman was armed this making it obvious self defense."

I wonder how people would've felt about this case if that had happened?

How people would have felt if the roles were reversed and Martin was not brought on charges? I have no idea. I guess it depends on whether Zimmerman's family petitioned a group of concerned rabble rousers to take up their story on a national stage to force the hand of government.

If this becomes true, I'd sure hate living in the Middle East in the next year..

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100886286

I have no problem with him facing trial. He'll probably have to face wrongful death too. Just don't think criminal conviction was warranted based on what we know or can piece together.

Here's what I said before.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10&p=46488&hilit=zimmerman#p46488

I think theres enough evidence that he murdered the guy to put him on trial. Isn't that the point of it? If the state thinks he murdered him they should try and prove it to a jury. They probably should have moved down that road immediately.

Anyway, the only thing I dont like about this kind of things is newsies editing tapes to make it more sensational, and that kid of thing. Creating the firestorm has cast serious problems with getting a fair trial, IMO. Even if Zimmerman is innocent, he would have been a lot better off getting thrown in jail immediately, released on bail, wait a couple months with no reason for outrage and then quietly get acquitted and go back to his life even over never getting indicted and have this thing snowball like it has, now his life has changed irrevocably.

I agree with that.

Now he has inherited a lot of the problems Trayvon had that night. He will not be looked at as blameless in anything anymore, regardless of anything he has done.

Bklyn wrote:I agree with that.

Now he has inherited a lot of the problems Trayvon had that night. He will not be looked at as blameless in anything anymore, regardless of anything he has done.

The problem I believe is that the Black community is treating this as if its 1955 in Selma, AL. The problem with this is that Travyon wasn't shot in the back. He was shot at an extremely close distance and it wasn't outside his residence. Regardless of who started what - I don't think anyone can dispute that there was a physical confrontation and that at some point Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman. I think the white community is more focused on George Zimmerman's right to protect his neighborhood because they don't associate his shooting of Travyon as this "black man in a white neighborhood getting hassled" mentality. For the most part I think white America has put that behind them.

Lets take the gun out of the equation - at that point, then its just a fight between two people that resulted in the death of a teenager. Lets replace the gun with a flashlight and George Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, grabbed a flashlight and smacked the kid in the head. Is there the same level of outrage? Everyone can relate to getting your ass kicked and grabbing whatever is within arms reach to protect yourself. The gun is the inflammatory here.

Now, put yourself in the place of George Zimmerman - Have you ever been on a neighborhood watch at 2am ( I know this isn't the timeframe of the event but stay with me). Why is there a neighborhood watch? Because crimes had significantly increased in that community, so Zimmerman is an area where crime has increased and he felt that he needed to be armed. Whether he needed to be or not, its not out of line in today's world - CCW permits have skyrocketed in the past 5 years. Guns sales have skyrocketed in the past 6 years. This isn't vigilante justice based on the norms of society right now. The days of the Guardian Angels are gone. I think you'd be hard pressed to find people acting in charge of a watch program that aren't armed , or at least have considered it.

Some people fault George Zimmerman for getting out of the car to follow Trayvon and some fault him for profiling Travyon.

He was in charge of a neighborhood watch. What possible good does Zimmerman bring to the neighborhood if he stays in his car while someone he suspects as a possible burglar walks out of sight? Is there some legal barrier that says that a neighborhood watch is limited to sitting in a vehicle?

So the question I'd like to ask then is - would Trayvon Martin be alive had he just stopped and told Zimmerman, "Hey, I live two block down from here, I'm visiting my dad and I just went to the store to get some junk food".

This question seems to be out of bounds to the black community that rejects that Trayvon should have to answer to George Zimmerman for anything and just should have been able to get his junk food and go back home. But Zimmerman had a responsibility to the people of his community. His responsibility was to look for people that were committing crimes.

I really have a problem with the statements of people on twitter and elsewhere that simply equate this to shooting a kid and getting away with it.

I would add another question....why is the MSM editing tapes and conversations to exploit/inflame tensions between dark skinned folks and less dark skinned folks?

"So the question I'd like to ask then is - would Trayvon Martin be alive had he just stopped and told Zimmerman, "Hey, I live two block down from here, I'm visiting my dad and I just went to the store to get some junk food"."

Maybe he did, but George didn't believe him.

All I know is I about puked when on Facebook I saw a comment that was something to effect of "Well this is official now. It is hunting season on *^&ggers".

I was like really??? Where is this outrage that in the past 2 weeks there have been 10 people shot and most of them dying in Indianapolis and the people that are being accused or caught don't look a thing like Zimmerman. How about stepping up and preaching about violence in general and not just incidents that seem to "favor" your cause and point of view.

Just complete and utter bullshittery.

sardis wrote:"So the question I'd like to ask then is - would Trayvon Martin be alive had he just stopped and told Zimmerman, "Hey, I live two block down from here, I'm visiting my dad and I just went to the store to get some junk food"."

Maybe he did, but George didn't believe him.

He didn't.

Jungle Rat wrote:I think he walks.

Ahem

Replying as part of the quoted posts? Interesting...

no I'm saying Trayvon didn't talk to Zimmerman as someone attempting to convey he lived there and didn't want any trouble.

Not that Zimmerman believed him had he tried

BRM wrote:How about stepping up and preaching about violence in general and not just incidents that seem to "favor" your cause and point of view.

Plenty of people step up and talk about violence in the Black community constantly...before, when and after things occur. It happens constantly in formal and informal situations. You've missed them, and I say without any hint of judgement, for whatever reason.

it seems to be alot of palatable outrage on both sides of this issue. My experience has been that usually one side has the moral outrage and the other side is "yea but what are you gonna do" kind of attitude. This case isn't that way.

There seems to be just as many people mad about Zimmerman being brought to trial as there is Trayvon being shot.