Howard University students' video PSA campaign: Do I look suspicious?

boing
45

Well, let me explain myself. I’m certainly not trying to troll, so perhaps it’s the “victim” definition I’m confused about. My understanding of the situation is this:
Zimmerman, for whatever reason, gets a bug up his butt about Martin walking down his street, and follows him out. The two engage in conversation, ‘heated’ words and an argument ensue. At this point, no one’s a victim here, it’s just two chuckleheads yelling at each other in the street. Being a chucklehead is not illegal, for either party. At some point, Martin strikes and continues to strike Zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman strikes back, hell maybe Zimmerman even struck first. I don’t know, I’m not aware of any witness testimony backing up either side myself. Please correct me if any of my statements above are inaccurate.

Anyway, we have two chuckleheads yelling at each other in the street. The official story is that Martin struck Zimmerman. At that point is where it stopped becoming two chuckleheads yelling, and it became an aggressor attacking his victim. The victim, fearing for his life according to his own testimony, pulled out his gun and shot Martin to death.

I’m certainly not saying that Zimmerman is a sympathetic victim. This isn’t as clear-cut as some muscle-bound gym-rat pounding on dear old Granny, Granny whipping out her Gat, and wasting the guy. I have no idea how well Zimmerman can or can’t take an a-- -whoopin’. Hell, he may have even EARNED his a-- -whoopin’. Regardless, society says you’re not allowed to go handing out a-- -whoopings to people saying hateful things (if we were, I’d be first in line to stand and deliver to WBC, but that’s a whole OTHER ball of wax…), acting obnoxiously, or having otherwise ‘earned it’. My (limited) understanding of the law is that if you A. are in the process of receiving an a**-whoopin’ and B. reasonably fear for your life, you are allowed to take steps to defend yourself up to and including lethal force. There’s limits to the ‘lethal’ part, reasonable force disparity and whatnot (i.e. if my dear old granny starts whacking me - a 30-ish puffball of a desk jockey - with her cane, I can’t say that I’m reasonably in fear for my life, pull out my .40 and blow her away), but the jury has apparently decided that a young-ish in-shape-ish man delivering a middle-aged lardo a (possibly very well-deserved) a-- -whoopin’, meets that reasonable standard. Without having been there to witness it myself, I’m going to have to go with the jury on this one.

So, that’s my reasoning for saying Zimmerman’s a victim. He may very well have been saying mean, hurtful things about all and sundry, but the official word is that Martin struck first, and that’s the point where it stopped being about two chuckleheads yelling at each other in the rain, and about an aggressor attacking a victim. You’re not allowed to go thumping on people because your feelings are hurt - that’s assault, and people are generally allowed to defend themselves from assault. I’m not saying Zimmerman was ‘right’, I’m absolutely not saying he’s ‘sympathetically right’. I am saying in this situation, given my limited understanding of the testimony and what we have in front of us, that he was victimized, and that gave him certain rights which he acted upon.

Anyway, this is a monster momma-jamma of a reply, and I’m not entirely sure if it’s remaining OT for this thread. I’d be happy, Mr. Moderator, to discuss this further offline if you’d prefer to continue elsewhere and keep the thread cleaner/more on-topic. My email’s in my profile, feel free to reach out.

1 Like
46

Without having been there to witness it myself, I’m going to have to go with the jury on this one.

Juries are not perfect and are sometimes WRONG.

You also sure used a LOT of words to really say “I place full trust in the jury. Black men are aggressors, even if they are smaller than you and unarmed and the one being pursued by an armed man. He deserved to be shot.”

What if Trayvon had been a woman?? Why has no one thought of this situation? How many times have we women been confronted on the street by strange men? I went my first 8 years in Phoenix without a car – I have some scary stories to tell. If I had been shot and killed by that man, and it had been in Florida, could the “self-defense” excuse have been used so easily?

2 Likes
47

And, seriously, “whoopings”? That childish language undermines the seriousness of the situation in which an unarmed child was followed for no reason by an armed man bigger than he, then shot dead.

48

Excuse me, I take offense to your bringing race into any of my comments. I never once brought up the race of either party, and I don’t see how race has any bearing on the facts of this case in the slightest.

As for using light-hearted language to describe a serious situation, I don’t appreciate your half-hearted ad-hominem. For crying out loud, we’re on a website whose main logo is a girl bouncing on a trampoline (jackhammer?). Groklaw or “Lawyernet” this place ain’t.

As for your initial statement, I’d say it’s less “I 100% trust the jury” as it is “after examining the facts of the case, I’ve come to a conclusion that just happens to be similar to the jury’s”.

49

Excuse me, I take offense to your bringing race into any of my comments.

Are you kidding me? Race is of course relevant. Just because you’d like to ignore the racial issues in this case, does not mean they don’t exist.

As for using light-hearted language to describe a serious situation, I don’t appreciate your half-hearted ad-hominem.

I don’t think you know what an ad-hominem is, but I assure you, calling you out for making light of a murdered child is not it.

For crying out loud, we’re on a website whose main logo is a girl
bouncing on a trampoline, Groklaw or “Lawyernet” this place ain’t.

And, now I know you aren’t being AT ALL sincere and don’t take this discussion seriously. Please pay attention to the tone of the post, the video, and the comments. This is a PSA about a murdered child!

BoingBoing is a LOT of things, but it doesn’t just focus on the light-hearted; this is not the first time this blog has touched on something more serious, and it will be far from the last. Humor can be used during and after a tragedy, and has even been used darkly to great effect in this post, but you aren’t humorous. You’re just being insensitive and insincere.

You have to be a trolley, because if not, the answer is that you’re not only really this completely dense and clueless, but also this insensitive.

1 Like
50

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m open to modifying my view on this, but I’m going to have to be swayed on arguments based on facts, not emotion. If you can explain to me, in factual terms, why race is relevant to any person being allowed or not allowed to defend themselves from physical harm, I would be very interested in hearing it.

Again, I think we may be getting a bit too off-topic for this post. I’d be happy to exchange emails with you if you wanted to further clue me in as to why I’m apparently being deeply insensitive in this matter; feel free to shoot me PM.

51

You keep coming from this from the angle of Zimmerman being the victim, which does not surprise me, considering you also deny that race had anything to do with it. Each and every person who has denied the race aspects of this case has also seen Zimmerman as the victim. You are not unique in this.

I out-right reject that. Zimmerman was the aggressor. The evidence is there; it’s everywhere. You have the same information available to you as I do. I am not going to spend time repeating it to you, when you’re only going to come to the same conclusions. I am also really not interested in furthering this discussion with someone who thinks it is appropriate to repeat the words “whoopin’” FIVE TIMES while describing the murder of a child. This is not King of the Hill! This is a real discussion about a REAL dead child!

But I will say this, and that is the last I will say to you:

Trayvon was not armed. He was the one being pursued. Trayvon was pursued by an angry man with a gun, a past history of violence, and an agenda that he never even tried to hide. Zimmerman was not and is not the victim. Zimmerman is a murderer and he murdered Trayvon. Of that there is no doubt in my mind.

4 Likes
52

Do we have witness testimony or some other evidence of who hit whom first? I haven’t followed the trial as closely as some, I freely admit that that extremely important fact may have passed me by. If Zimmerman hit Martin first, I absolutely agree that he would be the aggressor and should have had the full weight of the legal system coming down on him.

53

So, basically, what you’re saying is that an unarmed boy taking a swing at an armed man deserved to be shot and killed? There seems to be no evidence whatsoever to support Zimmerna’s claim that his life was in danger. He was the one armed; Trayvon was not. Trayvon was in far more danger (and now he is dead, curious how that happened, ins’t it?).

There are appropriate levels of force for self-defense. You seem to be saying that a punch is worthy of being shot and killed.

I also out-right reject this.

Zimmerman was NEVER in any mortal danger.

Also, for someone who “isn’t following the trial closely”, you sure are investing a lot of fucking time in discussing it and coming up with opinions about a dead child. I didn’t think you could come across as even less sincere and insensitive, but boy, you make it look easy.

2 Likes
54

Race should not determine whether or not a person can defend themselves, but the race of the victim (by this I mean the dead person) seems to influence whether or not a lethal response is considered criminal or not.

Defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

There was a witness, but he is dead. Although we do know (Key Disputes in the Zimmerman Trial - Audio - NYTimes.com) that “None of Mr. Zimmerman’s DNA was found in scrapings from Mr. Martin’s fingernails, and Mr. Martin’s hands had no blood or injuries aside from small abrasions on the knuckles of his left hand pinky and ring fingers. Mr. Martin was right handed.”

Why does the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin not mean anything to you?

Apparently he had mixed martial arts training (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/opinion/blow-questioning-the-struggle.html?pagewanted=all&partner=rss&emc=rss).

2 Likes
55

How was Zimmerman supposed to know Martin was 17? My understanding is that Zimmerman is short - barely 5’6", and Martin was just shy of six feet. Again, that’s speculation on my part, please correct me if I’m wrong.

If someone 6" taller than me takes a swing or four, do I have to say “Excuse me sir, before I bequeath a can o’ whoopin’ (sorry, that word again) on you in self defense, may I please see your ID?” Again, this falls under ‘play stupid games, win stupid prizes’. I don’t think for a minute Zimmerman should have followed Martin out or engaged in a heated argument with him. That was downright STUPID, but stupid is not illegal (yet…). Neither was Martin’s arguing back at Zimmerman. Stupid, possibly. Expected, probably. But not illegal. Where it became illegal, escalating the situation from ‘two chuckleheads yelling in the rain’ to self defense, is when Martin took a swing at Zimmerman. That’s when Zimmerman stopped being ‘just another a-- hole’ to victim, at least in my opinion.

Because, to my knowledge, it’s not illegal to follow someone in a public place. I’m not saying it’s the “right”, “moral”, “polite”, or even “decent” thing to do, especially in this situation, but it is legal.

56

Yes, there are appropriate levels of force for self defense, and lethal force is allowed if there is sufficient disparity between the parties involved. I mentioned this a couple of posts ago - it’s not legal for me to claim self defense in shooting dear ol’ Granny, even if she’s wailing on me with her cane, because I’m a thirty-something reasonably healthy (albeit still puffy) man. The jury decided that an almost-six-feet-tall individual beating on a not-quite-five-and-a-half-foot individual was a significant disparity of force for Zimmerman to reasonably believe his life was in danger. Yes, it turned out after the fact that the taller individual was 17 at the time, but there was no reasonable way for Zimmerman to know that at the time either.

58

Alright kids, it’s been fun arguing with you all on THE INTERNEETTT!, but it’s late and I need to go inspect the inside of my eyelids for cracks. I seriously doubt if I’ve convinced anyone to convert to my point of view, but I hope I’ve at least explained myself in a semi-coherent, logical way. Feel free to pick apart any of my stuff, and if I haven’t been mod-thumped to hell and back in the meantime, I’ll try and find some time to reply more tomorrow.

59

Martin was 5’11" and 158 pounds. Zimmerman was 5’7" and 185 pounds. Killing of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia

2 Likes
60

No, we do NOT have “two chuckleheads” at this point. We have one armed stalker trying to pick a fight and one kid trying to mind his own business. You keep trying to paint the confrontation as something that both parties share equal responsibility for, but that’s simply not the case.

1 Like
61

That’s a bold statement, can you back that up with anything? Here’s how I’d parse your words, “We have one armed stalker trying to pick a fight and one kid trying to mind his own business”:

“armed”: So what? Zimmerman’s firearm was legally owned and concealed

“stalker”: My understanding is that ‘stalking’ requires a continued pattern over a certain length of time. As it stands, I’d say “argumentative a-hole” before “stalker”, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

“trying to pick a fight”: I’ll accept that. I certainly don’t think Zimmerman approached Martin with an “excuse me sir, but you look lost…” attitude. However, “trying to pick a fight” and “succeeding in fighting” are very different things. “Trying…” falls under “being a stupid a-hole”.

“one kid”: There’s no way Zimmerman could have known Martin’s age, short of asking him outright or carding him. Martin’s age is unfortunate, but I’d say it has minimal bearing on the argument at hand. A 17 year old taking a swing can do serious damage, an 8 year old taking that same swing probably cannot.

“trying to mind his own business”: this one I’m still skeptical on. At first? Sure, but we’d be speculating. All we know from witness testimony (whoever posted that wikipedia link, many thanks for that!) is that one man was on top of the other man at some point. “Minding one’s own business” doesn’t mean taking a swing at another person. This whole thing boils down to “who swung first?” There’s only two people on the planet who know that for a fact, and one of them is dead. Given a lack of evidence or testimony to the contrary, that is the best we’ve got right now, and what we have to go with.

62

[quote=“law, post:61, topic:3888”]
“armed”: So what? Zimmerman’s firearm was legally owned and concealed
[/quote]And it’s one of many reasons why Martin posed no threat to Zimmerman until Zimmerman started a confrontation with him for no good reason.

[quote=“law, post:61, topic:3888”]
Martin’s age is unfortunate, but I’d say it has minimal bearing on the argument at hand. A 17 year old taking a swing can do serious damage,
[/quote]I can’t remember the last time I heard an unarmed 17-year-old doing serious damage to an armed man sitting in a truck.[quote=“law, post:61, topic:3888”]
“trying to mind his own business”: this one I’m still skeptical on. At first? Sure, but we’d be speculating.
[/quote]Even if we take Zimmerman’s testimony at face value there’s no reason to believe Martin was doing anything other than minding his own business at the time of the confrontation. Best case scenario, Zimmerman provoked a fight and shot Martin when the teen got the upper hand. Under any reasonable justice system that would be manslaughter at least.

1 Like
63

All we know is that Zimmerman followed Martin and probably started an argument. Starting an argument is not illegal.

The act of carrying a gun doesn’t magically make you impervious to punches. Actual, uniformed policemen get their clocks cleaned on a fairly regular basis, and the idiots who do that KNOW they’re going to call ‘friends’ for assistance. As for ‘sitting in a truck’, by all accounts Zimmerman wasn’t in the truck when the argument started.

I’ll agree that Zimmerman started the argument (and this goes back to Zimmerman’s actions being deeply, shockingly, mind-numbingly stupid - just like ‘getting out of the truck in the first place’). However, there’s very few things that can be said to another that would excuse another person from swinging first. That gets into the whole ‘actionable threat’, ‘reasonable belief’, etc, and to my knowledge that’s not at hand in this case.

NOW you’ve made a very interesting argument! Using my mad wikipedia skills, the general idea of manslaughter (keeping in mind, the specifics of this could vary depending on the exact Floridian definition of manslaughter) is this (paraphrasing direct from wikipedia):
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the state of mind; or the circumstances under which the killing occurred. You’ve got a few different categories of manslaughter too: Voluntary and involuntary. The latter is broken down into two more subcategories, constructive and criminally negligent.

Quick summary of manslaughter follows. Feel free to skip down to ‘End of summary’ if you just want my reasoning of how this might or might not apply to the Zimmerman situation

Very briefly (the wikipedia article is much better for hashing out the specifics), voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with intention to kill or cause serious harm, but there are mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. The traditional mitigating factor between this and murder was provocation. I don’t think this applies to the Zimmerman case, for reasons which will become clear in a minute.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without intention to kill or cause serious harm, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability. I’d say ‘involuntary’ is a better fit for what we have here, the situation seems to be that Zimmerman didn’t INTEND to kill Martin when he went down that alley.

Constructive involuntary manslaughter occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter. I don’t think this applies to Zimmerman, because he wasn’t in the process of committing an illegal act - it’s not illegal to follow someone down an alley and start an argument with them.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient’s oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies.

End of summary

Again, apologies for the wall o’ text. “Voluntary” doesn’t apply, because we don’t think Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he walked down that alley. “Constructive involuntary” doesn’t apply because Zimmerman wasn’t in the process of comitting a crime by following Zimmerman down the alley, or starting an argument with him. “Criminally negligent” probably doesn’t apply, because Zimmerman didn’t have a duty towards Martin. Now, a VERY interesting argument could be made that, because Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch, and Martin lived in the neighborhood, that there was a duty for Zimmerman to protect Martin, Zimmerman failed in that duty by not recognizing Martin as a member of the community, and that qualifies him for “Criminally negligent manslaughter”. It’s a bit of a stretch though, and I don’t know how that might fly outside the armchair law-library this thread has become…

If there’s interest, I’ll break down “murder” in the same way so we can see what the prosecutor may have been thinking (her actual charge brought against Zimmerman was Second Degree Murder, according to the Wikipedia article).

64

Self-defense is not just whether he should use force or not, but the magnitude as well. Killing an unarmed teen because he’s punching you senseless should be considered excessive force by any standard. Unfortunately, the way Florida has their self-defense statutes written allows anyone to liberally use lethal force - which is why so many people are outraged by the case.

Zimmerman should have been found not guilty - the case shouldn’t have even gone to trial. However, that’s the true failing. The law (especially in Florida) is so dedicated to allowing the asshole neighborhood watch d-bags their concealed firearm that there is no way to mete justice when they kill an unarmed teen for assaulting them.

65

Again, how could any reasonable person be expected to deduce that their assailant is a teen? In the heat of the moment, Zimmerman just knew that ‘someone’ who stood 4" taller than him was ‘punching him senseless’.