You are viewing hradzka

David Hines [userpic]

the shooting of Trayvon Martin

March 24th, 2012 (07:27 pm)
Tags: ,

I tend to be very cautious in following the news stories of major shootings, because you have to watch out for 1) information changing and 2) narratives getting locked. The shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman is heading into the narrative lock stage. It's not just our conjectures that crystallize, but the *stories* we believe the event is telling. And Martin's death involves dueling narratives, not just about the meaning of his death, but about the legal circumstances. But the meaning and the circumstances have very little to do with each other at this point, because Trayvon Martin isn't just Trayvon Martin anymore. People aren't just pissed off about his death, they're pissed off over a *lot* of deaths, and about stuff that doesn't just involve death, but being hassled due to walking while black. For the folks who have these stories it's a major point of identification.

The legal issues at hand are 1) the actual shooting and 2) the performance of the police department. This is where the narrative can get thorny. Both legal issues have the same political narrative: Zimmermann is racist. The police department is racist. This conflates the two problems into one, which is compelling, but mechanically and from the POV of our institutions -- and for me, as a civilian with a carry permit -- these are two distinct problems. The Sanford PD has handled the case appallingly, but at the moment the state of Florida and the city of Sanford seem to be responding to the political pressure in appropriate ways, with the appointment of a special prosecutor and a vote of no confidence in the police chief. It is important that the politicos recognize the seriousness of this situation; at the same time, just because the public *thinks* Zimmerman guilty does not automatically mean that he *is,* and not only due to Florida's "stand your ground" law. There was a hell of a compelling narrative in the Duke lacrosse case, after all, and that didn't exactly turn out as everybody thought.

That said, looking at the evidence available, my most charitable assessment of Zimmerman (which is difficult to make) is that he is almost certainly criminally liable. (I will explain the "almost certainly" shortly.) It's surprising he wasn't arrested that night, though the initial police report makes it clear he was cuffed and the case was investigated as potential manslaughter. It's also worth noting that the most damning facts (Martin had left home on a brief errand to get some snacks) didn't come out till later, though they bloody well should have come out that night, because *Martin had his cell phone on him* and the cops still took three inexcusable days to notify his family. To me, that is item number one on the police malfeasance list.

Worse, as facts did come out they looked worse for Zimmerman. The Zimmerman family's initial statement was that Zimmerman did not pursue Martin. That, we shortly learned, was a blatant lie. It was also a stupid lie, because Zimmerman knew he had told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to follow Martin, and he knew that his statement to that effect had been recorded. Either Zimmerman's family went out on their own limb, or Zimmerman lied to his family about what he did. Dumb move, either way. Moreover, the police foot-dragging on the arrest made it look a hell of a lot like they had sympathies for Zimmerman over Martin.

Zimmerman had been generally agreed to be the neighborhood watchman at a meeting of the neighborhood association with the Sanford PD, and took his gig seriously. It's worth noting that Zimmerman majored in criminal justice in college, which is usually a great big sign that he wanted to be a cop. Times are tough all over, and a lot of police agencies are on hiring freezes right now, meaning Zimmerman had no chance to get hired. So he was taking that neighborhood watchman job very seriously. He was, in short, what gun nuts refer to as a mall ninja. Think Seth Rogen's character in OBSERVE & REPORT, a guy who wants to be a cop more than anything in the world and who should never ever for the love of God come to hold such a gig. My guess is that Zimmerman probably hoped to use the neighborhood gig as a springboard into the police force, when hiring started up again. He may have lobbied for the position; when his neighbors held a meeting with the Sanford PD, they volunteered Zimmerman for his unpaid, unofficial position. I wonder if the cops knew Zimmerman's ambition, and if so what they thought of it. Reporters should be digging into that. Nobody seems to know what he did for money; they should be looking into that, too.

The short version of what happened next is that Zimmerman saw Martin "acting suspiciously" and called 911. When Martin evaded, Zimmerman, determined to not let a potential malfeasant get away, pursued him. He caught up to Martin again and confronted him. They reportedly fought. Then Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him.

There were several 911 calls reporting the incident, but two are of particular note. One is Trayvon Martin's last phone call to his girlfriend; the other is an eyewitness account of the fight. Martin's girlfriend told ABC News that Martin told her he was being pursued, thought he lost the guy, and then as she listened the guy found him again. Then she heard pushing, and Martin dropped the phone. When she called back, no one answered. Most of the 911 calls describe hearing the yelling and shots, but a man who gave his name as John told a local station that he actually saw part of the fight, and when he went to call 911 Zimmerman was on the ground, and Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating the crap out of him. While John was on the phone to the cops, Zimmerman shot Martin with a 9 mm Kel-Tec PF-9, which the police report states Zimmerman carried in an inside-the-pants holster. The police arrived and held Zimmerman at gunpoint. He complied with police directions. The police report noted that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a cut on the back of his head, and stains on the back of his shirt consistent with him having been lying in the grass. Martin was face down and wasn't moving. Police attempted resuscitation to no avail. Paramedics responded and had no more luck. At this point, the detectives were called in.

The exact scenario of the shooting is necessarily murkier. Much has been made of Florida's "stand your ground" law in this shooting (see, for instance, this very badly reported Tampa Bay Times article decrying the law), and the governor has promised to review it. I don't mind reviewing laws to see how they're working out, but what's curious about this is that the "stand your ground" law does not seem to have applied to George Zimmerman's choices at all. There are a few different scenarios that could have played out, but under none of them was Zimmerman dependent on the "stand your ground" law in the slightest. Zimmerman was not standing his ground. He was *pursuing* Martin. This is the thing that people are forgetting: *Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground, too.* He was pursued by a man for reasons he didn't know, and then that guy showed up again. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground in this case. Martin was.

The most annoying part from an analytical, rather than moral, point of view, is that some relatively minor questions are extremely important to the case, but *none of these are questions that the press is asking.* These are the things I want to know:

1) How many times was Martin shot, and at what range, and how many bullets were there in Zimmerman's gun when the police arrived?

The news articles I've seen report that Martin was shot once, but these were recounted before the release of the 911 tapes. On the 911 tapes, I hear a muffled sound that could possibly be a gunshot, followed by screaming, followed by a definite gunshot. To me, that screaming doesn't just sound panicked; it sounds *hurt.* Two gunshots with a delay in between could spell Zimmerman coldly finishing off a wounded man. And that'd be murder, which is why the answer to this question is so important. It's also obvious and dramatic, which, given the fact that Zimmerman wasn't arrested ages ago, makes me think one shot is far more likely. There are questions about the circumstances of the shot, though. (See my most charitable reconstruction, in #4.)

2) What's the geographic relationship between the store, Martin's house, the site of the shooting, and where Zimmerman first saw Martin? What path was Martin taking before Zimmerman eyeballed him?

I don't ask this because I think Martin was at fault here. It's America, fer Chrissakes; he had the right to stroll anywhere he damn well liked on a public street. What I'd like to know is just how much Zimmerman fell down on the job by not knowing who Martin was. How big was Zimmerman's turf? Did Martin live in it, or near it, and did he pass through occasionally? I mean, call me crazy, but if I get appointed neighborhood watchman I'm not going to camp out in my car with my Glock, I'm going to go around knocking on doors, handing out my business card, and getting to know *who the fuck lives in my neighborhood.* If Zimmerman didn't know Martin, and he should have, then that's a serious problem right there.

ETA: He shouldn't have. I forgot that Martin was visiting family in Sanford, but lived in Miami. Zimmerman wouldn't have recognized him.

3) Did anyone document Zimmerman's injuries? Did Martin have any injuries other than the gunshot wound?

Much has been made of the fact that Zimmerman was not tested for drugs or alcohol. I think it's as important to know if he was injured, and to what extent. I'd also like to know if Martin had any injuries other than the gunshot wound. They reportedly fought. I'd like to see some corroboration of that story. It's extremely important, and the police need to produce it, because right now nobody trusts the Sanford PD's word on anything.

4) Did Zimmerman have his gun drawn when he confronted Martin, or did he draw it during their fight? How did the fight start?

This is the big question, because I think it pretty much decides whether Zimmerman is on the hook for murder. Let's assume the scenario most charitable to Zimmerman:

Zimmerman sees Martin, who strikes him as suspicious, because Martin is outside walking in the rain and looking at various houses. Zimmerman can't quite tell Martin's ethnicity at first -- but he realizes Martin is black pretty quick, and possibly utters a racial slur ("fucking coons") as he's getting out of his car. The neighborhood has had a bunch of burglaries recently, and racial tensions are exacerbated by a new minority influx. Zimmerman, a naturally aggressive and confrontational personality who hopes to become a police officer, is not going to allow any crap on his watch. He calls 911, and is told an officer is en route. Zimmerman is told not to pursue and initially heeds this order, though he complains these guys always get away. Then he gets off the line with 911, and figures, "Screw that, I'm going to keep watching him."

Martin notices Zimmerman is following him. Martin puts his hood up and tries giving the man the slip. He succeeds, briefly. Martin's friend (girlfriend?), on the cell phone, tells him to run, and Martin says that he will walk fast. When he thinks he's clear, he starts to make a break for it. Then Zimmerman intercepts him. When Martin says, "What are you following me for?" Zimmerman ignores the question and challenges him: "What are you doing here?" The phone call ends as their fight starts.

If Zimmerman has a gun drawn when he confronts Martin, then Martin is legitimately terrified and he believes he is in a fight for his life.

If Zimmerman does not have a gun drawn, but he attacks Martin first, Martin may not believe he is in a fight for his life but has every right to defend himself.

If Martin just gets pissed off or scared and decides to clock this asshole, then *Zimmerman* believes that this is just further proof he was right to be suspicious, because Zimmerman knows himself to be the neighborhood watch and so obviously *the guy attacking him must indeed be a dangerous criminal.*

One thing is clear: whatever started the fight, if we believe the one eyewitness by the time it was well underway Martin had knocked Zimmerman down and was on top of him beating the crap out of him. Zimmerman could have turtled and yelled, "I quit, I quit, I'm sorry!" But if he's pegged Martin as a dangerous criminal who is beating the crap out of Zimmerman when *Zimmerman* believes himself to have done nothing wrong, then Zimmerman would be certain that surrender wouldn't work. So if Zimmerman did not have his gun drawn, he drew it now.

And then he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

I don't mean to paint an equivalency between them, because whether or not Zimmerman legally culpable (which, as I said, he almost certainly is; only one of the three potential one-shot scenarios I buy comes down to a horrible mistake and two of them come down to Zimmerman inciting violence and putting Martin in the position of defending himself), Martin was a guy on his way home from the store and Zimmerman is *the guy who killed him.* But it's a little eerie to see how each's thinking about the other would have fallen into similar lines. Trayvon Martin wasn't just killed by George Zimmerman. He was killed by the Prisoner's Dilemma. Martin could have surrendered to Zimmerman, but he didn't know who the hell this guy was or what he wanted, and he was justifiably scared of him. Zimmerman could have surrendered to Martin, but (under, I repeat, the most charitable presumption), he believed Martin to be a dangerous criminal and didn't think that it would work. Neither of them felt safe cooperating, so they both defected. And now Martin is dead and folks are posting "George Zimmerman: Wanted Dead or Alive" posters because, legally culpable or not, Zimmerman was a fool and a bad neighborhood watchman who would have been a bad cop.

This is the confrontation with Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman should have had:

"Hey, man, I'm George! What's your name?"

If Zimmerman had done that, Trayvon Martin would be alive, and Zimmerman a better man, today.

Originally posted on my DW. | comment count unavailable people have commented there. | Do so yourself, if you like.

Comments

Posted by: nrrrdy_grrrl (nrrrdy_grrrl)
Posted at: March 24th, 2012 11:44 pm (UTC)

I love your sanity. *mwah*

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 12:06 am (UTC)

1. You are braver soul than I am, to open your LJ to this discussion.

2. There's apparently an eye-witness to the shooting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119615/Trayvon-Martin-New-witness-tells-police-George-Zimmerman-provoked.html

Eyewitness testimony, in general, being what it is it's probably best to treat it with some wariness, but it does seem to correspond well with original forensic evidence found on Zimmerman.

3. I would feel a lot better if Al Sharpton (whom I primarily associate with the Crown Heights incident) wasn't on the scene, feeding of the mess.

Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 12:53 am (UTC)

I would feel a lot better if Al Sharpton (whom I primarily associate with the Crown Heights incident) wasn't on the scene, feeding of the mess.

I don't understand this. Does Sharpton's influence reach back in time, to change what happened?

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:10 am (UTC)

1. Of course it does. In my opinion it is, at best, naive to think that a figure like Sharpton will not have an impact on how the incident is perceived, thus shaping the event itself, for all intents and purposes. That has already happened, in fact - which, to me, is exemplified by your own seeming confidence that the circumstances and facts of the case are already perfectly clear, and so are the guilty parties.

That view is widely shared, with the usually inevitable inference that those who don't agree are willfully or subconsciously blinded by personal or cultural racist outlook, or by the ur-explanation of Privilege

2. Shaping the past (to paraphrase a cliche) in turn, influences the future, which is my primary concern. I'd like it if Sharpton could be prevented from instigating another pogrom. His rhetoric since he arrived to Sanford has been essentially an incitement to racial payback violence.

Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:22 am (UTC)

Pogrom? Pogrom?

...Please tell me you don't actually know what that word means.

And, if you do, I would be interested to hear your count of the number of innocent white civilians who died in an organized campaign of murder by black people acting out of racial hatred as a result of the Tawana Brawley incident. My count is: fewer people than died at the hands of George Zimmerman.

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:30 am (UTC)

In response to your query - I strongly suspect that my experiences with pogroms are more comprehensive than most people, and would suggest googling names of Yankel Rosenbaum and Anthony Graziosi, if you are so inclined.

That said: I suspect that if this discussion continues it has a high likelihood of becoming a flame war. Nor is this the topic on which people are likely to change their minds.

So I'll stop hi-jacking David's journal at this point and bow out.


Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:45 am (UTC)

I was alive and reading the news during the Crown Heights riots, actually. They occurred four years before the Brawley incident. Those are some serious magical powers you are attributing to Sharpton.

Nor is this the topic on which people are likely to change their minds.

Well, when you start a discussion by saying, "I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY I'M A RACIST BUT I KNOW IT'S YOU WHO ARE REALLY THE BIGOT AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A VIRTUE OUT OF THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO OPPRESS ME BY DISAGREEING," you pretty much are announcing that you're not going to. Which is what the whole preemptive "privilege!" cry is.

Or, put it another way: I didn't expect to agree with David, but I thought it was worth checking in on his opinion. I also expected that if I disagreed with him about the legal ramifications of the factual scenario that he himself sketched out, he'd be able to respond substantively.

You didn't say, "Hey, I think there's another factual scenario that should be considered here which is even more exculpatory." You didn't say, "Hey, I think your understanding of Florida self-defense is wrong, here's my analysis of the case law." You just said, "privilege! and the ever-lurking peril of organized murder of whites by blacks! and Trayvon Martin's death would be a lot more troubling to me if Al Sharpton hadn't shown up afterwards!"

So, it's as well that you bow out now, before you embarrass yourself further.

Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:50 am (UTC)

(Mistyped: four years *after.*)

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 01:32 am (UTC)
plane

The eyewitness report isn't new. It's the same guy whose testimony I linked. The local news had his story shortly after it happened.

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 02:11 am (UTC)

Ah, so it is. Sorry for the spam.

Posted by: The Weasel King (theweaselking)
Posted at: March 27th, 2012 12:29 pm (UTC)

FYI, you should not trust anything that the Daily Mail prints that you haven't seen printed in a *credible* source elsewhere - and if you do also see it in a normally-credible source, make sure the normally-credible source hasn't screwed up and pulled their story from The Mail.

The Mail *make shit up*. Constantly. They have never had any qualms about inventing quotes that support their narrative or simply inventing "facts" and claiming they got them from a fictional source. They're midway between the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News, with a healthy leavening of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for ideology and rhetoric.

Notably, The Mail in this case have taken the same details from the same witness - the claim that there was a fight that he didn't see the start of, or the end of - and stuffed on a headline that claims Martin definitely started the fight and that Zimmerman was definitely exonerated. And they've implied that this is a new thing that's just come out, giving the false impression that this is not only exculpatory, but new.


tldr: I don't believe your link, and you shouldn't either. When The Mail prints something, you should assume it's false until proven otherwise, and your only question should be "HOW false is it?"

Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 12:50 am (UTC)

If Martin just gets pissed off or scared and decides to clock this asshole, then *Zimmerman* believes that this is just further proof he was right to be suspicious, because Zimmerman knows himself to be the neighborhood watch and so obviously *the guy attacking him must indeed be a dangerous criminal.*

No, David. You don't get to shoot someone for breaking and entering (the crime Zimmerman supposedly suspected Martin of planning to commit), or even for being someone who is beating you up, which is your "most charitable scenario." You have to hold a reasonable belief that your own life is in jeopardy before you can shoot at someone. You don't get to bring a gun to a Skittles fight. I'm not intimately familiar with FL law, but the principle of proportionate response is essentially universal, or every bar brawl would end with a shooting.

Neither of them felt safe cooperating, so they both defected.

Maybe you don't mean to treat them as equivalent, but this sentence certainly does. Don't. One of them was out hunting coons who always get away, and one of them was out getting some damn snacks, only to find himself chased by an armed vigilante. And--most importantly--only one of them chose to use lethal force. If Zimmerman had only fought with Martin, both of them would almost certainly still be alive today.


Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 02:11 am (UTC)
plane

I'm not intimately familiar with FL law, but the principle of proportionate response is essentially universal, or every bar brawl would end with a shooting.

Under Florida law, "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." (This also applies if someone is breaking into your house, dwelling, or occupied vehicle.) If the eyewitness account of the fight is accurate, then the case is probably going to revolve around the "great bodily harm" provision.

You don't get to bring a gun to a Skittles fight. But if you're down on the ground, and the other person is on top of you and beating you, and you can't get the other person off, and you're screaming for help (as Zimmerman claims the screams on the 911 tape are his), you'll probably be putting forth a great bodily harm defense. Martin, of course, had the right to defend himself under the same statute, and Zimmerman started the whole thing by shadowing Martin and freaking him out.

My guess is that it is going to turn into a question of who started the actual fight and who escalated it, greatly complicated by the fact that the only surviving participant and the initial investigating agency have demonstrated untrustworthiness. But I could be wrong there.

Posted by: Sarah T. (harriet_spy)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 02:23 am (UTC)

"Great bodily harm" isn't generally interpreted as just a beatdown, though. It's severe, potentially life-threatening injury. It's extremely difficult to sustain such a defense in connection with the killing of an unarmed person, especially if there isn't some big disparity in height or weight. (And in this case, the disparity obviously ran the other way.)

And, wow, you are right and I was wrong about actual breaking-and-entering into someone else's residence--which is absurd, in itself!--but the shooter has to believe that the breaking-and-entering is occurring, or has occurred, for the presumption of imminent peril to apply. That is not what Zimmerman himself reported.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 02:48 am (UTC)
plane

I honestly don't know how they measured up to each other. This is one of the things I've been trying to figure out. Zimmerman is clearly a big dude, but I don't know how tall he is. I have no idea on Martin's size, either; most of the pictures of him look more a few years younger than seventeen. But strength and position counts for a lot, and that screaming on the 911 tape went on for a while. There's a reason referees dive in and stop fights quickly when pinned fighters can't defend against repeated blows to the head.

I don't know how strong a defense it'd be, mind, but it's my best guess at what Zimmerman's attorney would argue. (As you've noted, "he's walking! on the sidewalk! looking at houses!" wouldn't do it.)

Posted by: Hel (heldc)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 08:10 pm (UTC)

I've seen Zimmerman reported as 250ish pounds and 6 inches taller than Trayvon, with Trayvon weighing like 175. I believe google for Zimmerman weight will probably find reasonable sources.

Posted by: Sinanju (sinanju)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 08:15 am (UTC)

"Just a beatdown" differs from great bodily harm only if the person doing the beating is either unable to or chooses not to keep punching until he gets tired or bored. The victim cannot be expected to know for certain whether this is "just a beatdown" or an attempt at great bodily harm, nor is he legally (or morally) required to wait to find out.

People can be and have been beaten to death with bare hands. Or kicked to death, throttled, etc. Assuming that the person doing the beating or kicking or throttling will stop before inflicting great bodily harm (or that he can tell where that line is, or cares) is an unacceptable risk. Especially since once the "just a beatdown" progresses far enough the victim is no longer CAPABLE of resisting effectively.

Posted by: silk_noir (silk_noir)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 04:42 am (UTC)

May I share this?

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 05:11 pm (UTC)
plane

Sure.

Posted by: HJ (hjcallipygian)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 12:56 pm (UTC)

I have a question: how big is Zimmerman compared to Martin? Because, let me tell you, maintaining top control on someone who is bigger than you is very difficult, even if he doesn't know what he's doing. Especially if you're throwing punches. (Most people throw wide, looping hooks that throw them off-balance.)

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 04:14 pm (UTC)

Martin is 6'2 and 140lbs.
Zimmerman is 5'9 and, from the one report I found listing his weight, is 250lbs (http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/sanford-officials-hold-news-conference-teens-shoot/nLRC3/)

Edited at 2012-03-25 04:17 pm (UTC)

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 04:56 pm (UTC)
plane

I've seen Martin listed as being 160, but the 6'2" is consistent. That linked report says Zimmerman's weight and height come from police records. That may well be his arrest from the middle of the last decade. The pics I've seen of Zimmerman were mostly his mugshot; a more recent pic shows he's dropped a lot of poundage since then. So Martin had five inches on Zimmerman, but the weight situation at the time of the shooting still looks a bit unclear.

Posted by: Doqz (doqz)
Posted at: March 25th, 2012 05:12 pm (UTC)

I've been reading about Martin's neighborhood. Not the area where the shooting took place but the place where he lives with his Mom - Miami Gardens, Miami-Dade.

The demographic tensions of that neighborhood certainly lend considerable credence to the game theory approach you used. Changing demographic balance, leading to increased tensions between Latinos and African Americans.

From Martin's perspective - a Hispanic-looking guy, stalking him at night, eventually confronting (while possibly using racial epithets)...

Posted by: 3fgburner (3fgburner)
Posted at: March 27th, 2012 01:02 pm (UTC)

Saw this over on silk_noir's Facebook, and would like to boost signal there, if I may.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 28th, 2012 03:51 pm (UTC)
plane

Sure.

Posted by: masgramondou (masgramondou)
Posted at: March 27th, 2012 02:06 pm (UTC)
Some info of the geography
B&W Face

BTW this link explains some of the geography.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/03/trayvon-martin-basic-geography.html

Or at least it has some of the basics and shows that Zimmerman almost certainly did not retreat as requested by the 911 operator but continued to follow.

From what I've read (and that's not by any means comprehensive) I think your charitable hypothesis in #4 is closest to the mark. I'm pretty sure Zimmerman did indeed act like a Mall Ninja and get in over his head. Then after a confrontation started to get thw sh*t knocked out of him. At which point I suspect he managed to draw his gun and shoot Martin.

Bluntly if Zimmerman had simply said something like "I'm George, the local neighborhood watch guy" when he first saw Martin then I expect this would not have happened. Hence I agree he's probably guilty of manslaughter since it was his actions (and inactions) that led to the confrontation.

Posted by: David Hines (hradzka)
Posted at: March 28th, 2012 03:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Some info of the geography
plane

Whatever happened, the geography doesn't look like it supports Zimmerman's story. I saw his friend on Anderson Cooper the other night; once you get past Cooper's terrible incompetence (he referred to John from the 911 call as a "new witness," cribbing from the Daily Mail, despite the fact that John was not a new witness in the slightest) and clumsy leading questions, the story that Zimmerman is reported to be putting forth was that he was getting back into the car when Martin set upon him, decked him, and began ground-and-pound. Presuming the map to be accurate, that doesn't match up with the location of the shooting at all.

Posted by: John Doheny (jdquintette)
Posted at: April 10th, 2012 04:33 pm (UTC)
Re: Some info of the geography

Agreed. According to what we know for sure 9and even that much is questionable since none of the "witnesses" have testified under oath) Zimmerman is the actor here. He is the one who did everything wrong; carried a gun when rules forbade this, pursued the "suspect" when advised not to by real cops etc.

While it's true we probably won't know much for sure unless/until there is a trial, I can't really see any reason to defend Zimmerman's actions unless (and I'm convinced this is the prime motivator behind the pro-Zimmerman faction) you actually secretly like the idea of unlicenced vigilanties stopping and harrassing every young black man who shows up in your neighborhood and view the occasional shooting death of one as acceptable collateral damage. And there are a disturbing amount of people like that in this country.

28 Read Comments