I’m not Trayvon Martin. I was way worse.
There’s a meme going around the internet and in street protests this week that has people proclaiming, “I am Trayvon Martin.”
But thinking about that seventeen-year-old boy’s death and the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the man who shot him, I keep thinking, “Uh, no. I was a lot worse than Trayvon Martin.”
Let’s rehearse what we know about the kid who was gunned down last year.
We know he did drugs, smoking at least enough marijuana to get caught and suspended from school.
I went to a rural high school where drinking and smoking marijuana were as commonplace as doing homework.
I never got suspended for it, only because it was the culture of that time and place to look the other way. I remember kids making bongs in art and shop class.
There is also some evidence that Martin stole things. He was found at one point with what may have been a “burglary tool.”
When I was a kid, I was a certifiable klepto. I’m ashamed to admit it now, but my decidedly casual moral and ethical boundaries ranged from theft to harassment to vandalism.
I’m sure some of my high school friends will correct me if I’m misremembering this, but I seem to recall one lazy, bored small-town summer when we actually made a game of pestering police officers — a kind of high-stakes hide and seek.
Except, really, the stakes weren’t so very high.
In my rural, white world, it was understood that kids would get up to hijinks. I’m not excusing my behavior — it was appalling, shameful, idiotic.
I’m merely pointing out that where I come from, a kid was expected to do far, far worse than anything Trayvon Martin did as a sort of rite of passage, as a way of sowing wild oats.
Some kid acting like a screw-up didn’t prompt anyone to reach for their pistol.
On the contrary. There’s actually a whole genre of American movies — “American Graffiti,” “Animal House,” “American Pie,” “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” — romanticizing teen rebellion.
Or maybe I should say white teen rebellion. Try to imagine it being a funny sight gag in an American movie if a bunch of black kids sabotaged a cop car? Or sped away from a traffic accident?
Text messages also suggest that Martin had a fascination with guns and gangsta culture. Friends, we owned guns, big guns, and we did things with those guns that make my blood run cold now.
Finally, there is this idea that maybe Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman in the street the night the boy was killed. Maybe Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense.
I can tell you that in the rural white culture where I grew up, if some strange guy is stalking you as you walk home from the corner store, refusing to mind his own business, there’s a level chance he’ll get a poke in the eye.
Now let me say this. In hindsight, some grown-up should definitely have twisted my ear a lot sooner. And there are still some old neighbors back in my home town who are owed a sincere apology.
I’m guessing there are some people that Trayvon Martin would have apologized to someday as well, if he had lived. He would one day have been sheepish about and embarrassed by the stupid nonsense he got up to as a kid.
What I didn’t need, though, was a guy with a pistol following me through dark streets. And I can tell you straight up that Trayvon Martin didn’t need that either.
Finally, I’ll say what I think is obvious but has maybe gotten lost in the culture war back-and-forth of this tragedy.
If a guy had shot me down in my home town in exactly the same way that Trayvon Martin was shot down, he would be in prison right now.
Particularly if you flip the racial dynamic and make it a black man shooting a white seventeen-year-old kid, it would be a no-brainer.
You could have told the jury about every one of my youthful indiscretions. You could have pointed out that the man who gunned me down had some injuries on his face. The guilty verdict would still have come back in about four minutes.
In a lot of ways my experience and Trayvon’s mark the current racial demarcation in America.
Yes, Jim Crow is gone. The modern era of lynchings and officially sanctioned violence against blacks is over.
But behavior that is met with flexibility, patience and a certain amount of weary, parental fortitude in white society — casual drug use, petty crime, youthful nonsense — will still get you killed or sent to prison if your skin happens to be black.
George Zimmerman walked away from this one. The rest of us? Not so much.
Let’s see…the only eyewitness account of the events are from GZ. He admits that he never identified himself. He admits that he reached into his pocket. So a (barely) 17 year old being followed in the dark by a stranger when he is not doing anything wrong (never mind any of the stuff on either side that didn’t make it into evidence. All he was doing was walking at the time of the confrontation) had no reason to fear?
Dave, you are making a strawman argument. Are you saying that is what happened between Zimmerman and Martin? You and Ron seem so sure of what happened, what Martin was thinking and that Martin was to blame. Were you there?
We have to consider the facts, not what we think probably happened. And what we know for sure is that Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, got out of his truck with a gun and initiated the confrontation that resulted in the death of a 17 year old. Obviously pre-meditated murder would not apply. But there has to be a statute appropriate for taking unnecessary vigilante action on your own that kills someone. Martin was not breaking into a house or anything else illegal. Zimmerman was not defending his home from an intruder. He was out looking for “punks.”
Read the 911 transcript or better, listen to the audio. Zimmerman describes Martin as a black teenager and says, “looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.” And later says, “These **sholes, they always get away.” The dispatcher says, “Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
Then there is this exchange:
• Dispatcher: Are you following him?
• Zimmerman: Yeah.
• Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
Clearly there is no evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong. And clearly Zimmerman was told the police were on the way and not to follow Martin. Clearly Zimmerman chose to escalate the situation to confrontation even though there was no imminent danger to anyone or even the suspicion that a crime was being committed. His predisposed attitude toward “These **sholes;” his negligence in ignoring the dispatcher not to follow and that police were coming; and then taking action when none was required to save a life or property directly led to the death of Martin.
Again, vigilantes need to be responsible for their actions and be held accountable. And again, either the laws in Florida are inadequate or the prosecutors were incompetent, or both.
What unmitigated nonsense! People (on both sides of this argument) seem to be bound and determined to cling to the stupid notions that reinforce their vision of America. Could this just possibly be the sad result of two stupid people who met at the wrong place and the wrong time? It could, but then America wouldn’t be a racist hell nor would Trayvon Martin be a thug criminal. Can’t have that, now can we?
Original Larry asks whether this could be a case of two stupid people “who met at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
But that’s not what happened. One of these people singled out the other and pursued him, despite a request by police that he not do so.
This encounter occurred at the time and place that George Zimmerman chose. Trayvon Martin wasn’t behaving stupidly. He was walking home from a convenience store.
Stripping causality from this narrative — erasing the sequence of deliberate choices made by the shooter — echoes the effort by some to strip race from the narrative.
–Brian, NCPR
“It could be that Zimmerman rushed Martin, tackled him to the ground and shot him. Zimmerman’s wounds could have even been self-inflicted after the shooting to pretend self-defense.”
“Zimmerman not only instigated this fight…”
I don’t blame you guys if you didn’t stay home and watch the entire trial – but what you are doing here is creating your own version of the incident based on speculation and conspiracy. Thankfully our justice system doesn’t work like that.
“Stripping causality from this narrative — erasing the sequence of deliberate choices made by the shooter — echoes the effort by some to strip race from the narrative.”
Because neither matter.
You still can not beat someone up because you think they are following you.
“Let’s see…the only eyewitness account of the events are from GZ.” This is the second person to comment on the “fact” that there was no eyewitnesses. I have not followed this too closely but I am pretty sure this is not correct. There was some witness in the trial that said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman:
In fact it sounds like there were more than one witness:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/29/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95Q0EE20130629
“Good was the fourth former neighbor who partially witnessed the death of Martin on February 26, 2012 to testify in the trial. Each has given a slightly different account, but Good is the first to state that Martin was on top during the struggle.”
“And what we know for sure is that Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, got out of his truck with a gun and initiated the confrontation that resulted in the death of a 17 year old.”
You conveniently leave out the most relevant part of the incident. That Martin beat the snot out of Zimmerman.
Again, you simply… can… not… beat… people… up… for the heck of it.
Being followed, being “confronted”, being insulted… it is not ok to assault someone over these things.
It doesn’t matter how obnoxious, stupid, annoying, out of line, whatever Zimmerman was being. That does not give anyone the right to mount him and beat him up.
The only thing that would have given Martin the right to do that is if Martin physically assaulted him first, and there is absolutely no – none, zero, zip – reason to believe that happened. The physical evidence and eye witness accounts all suggest just the opposite.
The point that was being made, Dave, is there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened in the physical confrontation. We know what happened before that — Z. following Martin in his car, then following him on foot. The sequence of events in the actual fight — who swung first, etc. — isn’t known, except for Z’s testimony, which has to be taken with some skepticism. All we know is that Z. ended up with some bruises and small cuts and Martin ended up shot dead.
Paul, you are correct. There were eye witnesses. They saw Martin on top of Zimmerman (he had him mounted, if you are familiar with MMA)
“All we know is that Z. ended up with some bruises and small cuts and Martin ended up shot dead.”
This is sort of my point.
All we know is that Zimmerman got out of his truck, that Martin beat him up, and that Zimmerman shot him.
That is all that was proven via evidence and eye witness testimony.
You guys are the ones jumping to conclusions beyond this. You all seem to be speculating and assuming that Zimmerman did something in between getting out of his truck and getting beat up, to deserve that beating.
I’ll ask it point blank… do you think it is ok to beat someone up, to straddle them and punch them, because they got out of their car and followed you?
The rule of law is important. Some laws need to be modified, so this doesnt happen again.
“Again, you simply… can… not… beat… people… up… for the heck of it.”
No, but you can beat people up to defend yourself. Zimmerman admits that he went after Martin, you could hear his intentions when he was talking to the person on the phone who told him not to go after him. Now in the school yard I grew up in if you go after somebody you started it.
Dave, it depends. If Zimmerman swung at Martin first and Martin then punched him and ended up on top of him, yes, that is justified, in my opinion. You can argue about how badly Z. was beaten up. It all depends on what you’re comparing it to. But Z’s injuries were minor, requiring little medical attention, so it seems an exaggeration to call that “beat the snot out of Z.” A lot could have happened that we don’t know. I’m not assuming what happened. I’m saying I don’t know and neither do you. What could have happened — Z. swinging at Martin, grabbing him, wrestling him to the ground (then Martin rolling over to get on top of him) — could justify Martin punching Z. repeatedly, legally and ethically.
If you insist on your hypothetical version of events — Z. got out of car, followed Martin, Martin punched him without physical provocation then got on top of him and beat him — no, not OK. But that’s one imagined version of what could have happened. Even then, I also do not think it’s OK for Z. to shoot and kill Martin under those circumstances.
its a matter of physics, brian.
“back then” we were small and the world was flat
the world is getting smaller, and the population is getting bigger.
pressure cooker rules apply.
two of the worst type of people met up.
a self loathing cop wanna be and a smart ass stubborn 17yr old punk wanna be gangsta
neither of them were right.
neither respected the rights of each other.
they were both the epitome of the stoopid us.
if I caught myself running thru my yard, I think i’d stop me, too.
if I felt like being a control freak p*ick
“If Zimmerman swung at Martin first and Martin then punched him and ended up on top of him, yes, that is justified, in my opinion.”
Will, I agree with this.
But it is pure speculation. We have no evidence, or reason (in my opinion), to think this happened. So everything everyone is getting worked up about here is purely hypothetical.
Paul, define “going after someone” – Following them? Confronting them about what they are doing? Not that school yards should be the basis for our legal system, but in what school yard would you be allowed to physically hurt someone for these things? The Lord of the Flies school yard?
trayvon wasn’t walking home.
he was running home (during half time events)
thas suspicious enough behavior for a cop wanna be.
zimmermann got in over his head in a confrontation and shot that kid when the tables turned against him.
if he had mace, he might have used that instead.
“we have a pool and a pond. the pond is good for you though”
Dave, you make it sound like Zimmerman was from the neighborhood Welcome Wagon and Martin attacked him unprovoked. But what if Zimmerman said or did something that caused Martin to feel threatened for his life. And what if Zimmerman told him he had a gun or Martin saw it? Would Martin have the same right to defend himself with his fists as you are so eager to give Zimmerman his use of a gun to defend himself – even though he only had minor injuries? Put yourself in Martin’s position. If someone was threatening you with a gun – what would you do? What rights would you have if someone was stalking you by vehicle and then gets out and demands to know who you are or says stop and stay there until the police come? All of these things could have happened. But the fact is we just don’t know what took place after Zimmerman left his truck.
The facts we do have from the 911 call clearly indicate the situation should never have escalated to confrontation. Zimmerman is solely responsible for that by ignoring the police dispatcher and the knowledge police were on their way. There was nothing happening that required Zimmerman to take any action. Martin was not committing any crime. This was not a bar fight or just two guys who happened to meet on the street. Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood looking those punks/goons/**sholes who always get away with it. He was predisposed emotionally and thought he’d found one of “them” and was not going to let him get away. His negligence started when he decided to take things into his own hands against the directions of the dispatcher and in the absence of any crime being committed. His negligence led directly to Martin’s death, which was completely avoidable had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher’s direction.
Based on what Zimmerman testified I would not define it as “following him”. He was admittedly going after him. Plus he had a gun. Where a lot of kids are from under those circumstances you don’t survive if you try and run. What is Martin supposed to do let the guy run up behind him and smash him over the head with god knows what? Did that same tape that caught the guy screaming for help catch Zimmerman yelling something like “Hey kid I am a neighborhood watch person I am not going to hurt you I would just like to talk to you!” It seems possible from his discussion with the dispatcher that he already had decided that he was going to do more than talk to him?
You have to keep in mind that concerned citizens and neighborhood watch participants “follow”, and check up on, and ask questions of strangers in their neighborhood all the time. Happens all across this country, every night.
This is especially true of neighborhoods that are experiencing crime.
You better believe that if my little Adirondack community was experiencing a rash of crime or vandalism or the like and I saw someone that I didn’t recognize… that I would check it out.
From the other perspective, as a kid, did you never have a grown up roll up on you and be all like “What are you kids doing there!?”
I sure as heck did. And some of them were real jerks about it. Some of them were very forceful in their efforts to get us to “move on”
I never beat them up.
“I would not define it as “following him”. He was admittedly going after him.”
What on earth does “going after him” mean?
Are you implying he physically assaulted Martin?
Myown, your comment is full of “what if’s” and “if’s” – most of which I would agree with… IF they were true.
But you are talking in terms of speculation, hypotheticals, and what ifs.
If we are going to speculate what Zimmerman did – “what if he threatened him with his gun or threw a punch” – then doesn’t that allow people to also speculate what Martin did – “what if he got mad because he was being tailed by a “creepy cracker” and decided to teach him a lesson”
I would argue that this is not a proper way to consider a situation like this.
Exactly right, Dave. We don’t know. And speculation that Martin attacked Z. unprovoked is also just that — speculation. You don’t know who threw the first punch, or grabbed the other’s clothing or tried to kick them or anything. So you cannot assume that because Z. had some cuts and bruises, or at one time Martin was on top of Zimmerman, that Martin was the physical aggressor.
Also, you’re wrong about neighborhood watch, according to the National Sheriff’s Association, which started Neighborhood Watch and has condemned Zimmerman’s actions: http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-statement-nw-tragedy-fl
They pull no punches in indicting Zimmerman: “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life.”
Dave, exactly that is my point. We don’t know what took place and your making out Martin to be the aggressor or instigator or whatever has no factual basis. But you seem willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of doubt that he was just defending himself and unwilling to consider Martin could have been doing the same thing against a man with a gun. We just don’t know.
But again it goes back to what preceded the confrontation. Your description of the typical neighborhood watch bears no resemblance to what actually happened in this case. How many times does someone on neighborhood watch patrol have the police on the phone, know a patrol car is coming, is told by the dispatcher not to follow, is not observing any crime underway yet pursues the individual anyway on foot that leads to a confrontation and the death of a teenager? Totally unnecessary and totally the fault of Zimmerman.
Exactly right, Will. We don’t know what we don’t know… so please stop inserting such speculation into the conversation. Suggesting that Zimmerman may have thrown a first punch, for example. We don’t know that.
All we know for sure – from the physical evidence and eye witness testimony – is that Martin did indeed physically assaulted Zimmerman.
That fact, is irrefutable.
You can continue to speculate all you want about what may or may not have transpired other than that… but it is just that… speculation.
It is down right scary to think that those of you who are relying so heavily on speculation and assumptions to draw your conclusions about this case are eligible to serve on juries!
“We don’t know what took place and your making out Martin to be the aggressor or instigator or whatever has no factual basis.”
Where have I called him an instigator or aggressor?
All I have said is that he assaulted Zimmerman. This fact is not in question.
It is YOU, and Will, and others, who keep speculating about what Zimmerman did to deserve, or provoke, or instigate that assault. Will speculated he may have thrown a first punch. You speculated he may have threatened him with his gun.
It is all, pure, speculation.
“How many times does someone on neighborhood watch patrol have the police on the phone, know a patrol car is coming, is told by the dispatcher not to follow, is not observing any crime underway yet pursues the individual anyway on foot that leads to a confrontation and the death of a teenager? Totally unnecessary and totally the fault of Zimmerman.”
I’ll add a description to that… totally dumb.
Here are some others… totally not illegal. Totally not a reason to get beat up. Totally not proof that he assaulted Martin in anyway.
Dave, Zimmerman’s actions were more than merely dumb. The legal term is negligence, especially when it involves the avoidable and unnecessary death of a person. There is no way Zimmerman should not be doing some time in a prison.
Will, I never suggested that Zimmerman was a model neighborhood watchman or followed their protocols. I have said, several times throughout these comments, that what he did was straight up dumb.
So there is nothing in the NSA’s statement that I disagree with. They simply point out what we all already know, that Zimmerman did something dumb.
Where the two of us seem to disagree strongly is that you seem to think that somehow either means he deserved the beating he got, OR that it proves that he must of also done something else to provoke or instigate it. The former is an absolutely absurd and dangerous proclamation, and the latter is pure speculation.
Dave,
If you are using assault in a legal sense, you are wrong. That has not been proven. It’s clear that in the course of a fight Martin struck Zimmerman and inflicted some minor injuries. But the blows he struck could have been self-defense. As you insist, no one knows. Hitting someone is not assault, as you keep calling it, if the other person attacked you first.
And as I pointed out, you may not be willing to blame Z. for Trayvon dying, but the National Sheriff’s Association, founder of Neighborhood Watch, is.
Brian,
Race isn’t part of this, no matter how desperately you need and want it to be in order to maintain your particular world view. Martin stupidly attacked a man who was following him. Not a smart move, ever, and all the more so given the results. Zimmerman was equally stupid for taking the actions that led to him having to shoot someone in self defense. By the yway, if stupidity wasn’t part of this why didn’t Martin use his cell phone to call 911 and report Zimmerman’s behavior?
Yeah, Neighborhood Watch is such a bad idea. Why don’t we just pile our belongings at the curb so criminals can pick them up without having to enter our homes? You really want people to volunteer for victim status?
“The legal term is negligence, especially when it involves the avoidable and unnecessary death of a person.”
That is not quite how negligence is used legally. But I understand what you mean.
You seem to feel that the act of getting out of the truck and following Martin set in motion the events that led to the death… and Zimmerman should be held accountable for that
To you, it seems, getting out of the truck and following someone is the problem, and anything that happens after that should be considered Zimmerman’s fault (no matter what actually happened, because we don’t know)
I simply disagree with that idea.
I was not using assault in the legal sense. I was simply referring to the fact that Martin physically beat up Zimmerman – a fact that is undeniable. And you do not mount someone, and punch them from that position, if you are defending yourself. That is an offensive posture. But there you are dragging me into your game of speculation. We don’t know if Martin was acting in self defense… we just know he we physically beating up Zimmerman.
By the way…
X did Y and Z happened
is not
X did Z
You are reading into that statement what you want because it supports your bias.
Who would have thought I’d be defending some idiot with a gun!
Talk about strange bedfellows.
Guess I should stop wasting time on this and get back to supporting gun control.
“I sure as heck did. And some of them were real jerks about it. Some of them were very forceful in their efforts to get us to “move on””
Your experience as a kid may not be anything like the experience for other kids in a place like Sanford Florida. As I understand it is a pretty tough area.
Are you going to react the same way to a guy approaching you in a housing project in Baltimore as you would a guy approaching you in Riverside Park in Saranac Lake. It is all relative.
Dave, above you say that Zimmerman did nothing between getting out of his truck and his altercation with Martin. That isn’t accurate he went after Martin, that is an important fact here. As you know from my comments above it is clear that what Zimmerman did was legal but that doesn’t make it right.
I agree with Dave a little on this, given the testimony and the trail Martin likely was beating up zimmerman.
Here is the deal though, without a crazy law that applies and encourages violence outside of your home or property, which this stand your ground law does, it would not matter; zimmerman would still be in trouble for shooting a guy in a fight, regardless of who was winning or who started the fight.
You decide to bring a gun to a fight and you shoot and kill someone, you are still responsible even if you were getting beat up in a fist fight. I just self defense means you run from the guy if you can, zimmerman chose not to run from him but to get out of his car with a gun. I think the facts would lead toward a manslaughter charge without the stupid law. With the law, Zimmerman is indeed innocent.
Basically with this law, most street fights particularly without clear eyewitness accounts, are not going to be against the law regardless of the injury or outcome and regardless of who “started” the fight.
The point, Larry, is that Zimmerman was not following Neighborhood Watch protocol, not even close. What he was doing could not be called Neighborhood Watch, which is why Neighborhood Watch has rejected his actions in the strongest terms.
I get the point, thank you very much, Will Doolittle. My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that neither Zimmerman nor Martin followed protocol, to borrow your phrase. It’s very apt in describing both their actions. Martin should have known that you don’t swing on anyone until you’ve assessed the situation and your chaces of success. It’s usually described as “don’t start anything you can’t finish.” Stupid mistake.
That is an important point. When Zimmerman started the pursuit it was a stupid mistake. In this case it appears that based on what the law allows Martin paid the price for Zimmerman’s stupid mistake.
Given the outcome nobody can claim with a straight face that doing that was not a stupid mistake. Even George Zimmerman would have to admit that. Unless you think he wanted to kill this kid and basically ruin his own life, and that is speculation at best.
“why didn’t Martin use his cell phone to call 911 and report Zimmerman’s behavior?”
Or simply walk away, or yell for help, or run to a neighborhood house and plead for assistance… all things I would do if I really thought some weird-o was stalking me.
Those who are too emotionally invested in condemning Zimmerman will probably try to speculate that he somehow ambushed Martin in such a way that gave him no option but to react with violent aggression.
“Martin should have known that you don’t swing on anyone until you’ve assessed the situation and your chaces of success.”
This isn’t the wild west.
We don’t let people swing on each other for the heck of it, or because they think they have a good chance of winning, or because they are mad, or insulted, or are being followed, etc etc.
The only way their speculative arguments make any legal, moral, or logistical sense is if they had evidence that Zimmerman physically endangered Martin to the point where Martin had no choice but to attack. No such evidence exists.
True.
The deal is though with this law either could make that claim.
This isn’t the Wild West? We don’t let people punch someone who is stalking them but we let them walk the streets with a gun and pop off when they’re losing a fight? That’s rich!
How was Trayvon supposed to have reacted? He’s walking home minding his own business, some older guy is following him in a car, then gets out and follows him on foot. Martin says, “Why are you following me?” Rather than answer, Zimmerman reaches into his pocket — for what he says was his cell phone. Martin had every reason in the world to feel threatened. Zimmerman was close up on him, no guarantees he could get away if he turned his back and ran. He couldn’t know if Zimmerman was reaching for a knife or gun, or could run faster. He did the only thing that makes sense when you might be in a corner, you attack first.
I’m not saying I think Zimmerman should have been convicted. In the moment he shot, he was defending his life. What he did wasn’t murder, maybe they shouldve charged him with some lesser offense. But it was wrong. Out of the dozens of things he could’ve done — stayed in the car, identified himself and told Trayvon what he was doing, not walked up to an obviously freaked out stranger and reached into his pocket — he chose the course of action that ended in his taking Trayvon Martin’s life.
Marlo, that is very well said.
This a free country. If you are doing nothing illegal I am pretty sure that you have a right to be left alone. If someone tries to interfere with that right you should have the legal means to try and stop them. Certainly if they kill you for trying to maintain that right it should be illegal and there should be serious consequences. Zimmerman did nothing illegal. It appears from the evidence that Zimmerman was having the “snot beaten out of him” because Martin was doing nothing wrong and deserved to be left alone. The law needs to be changed simple as that.
Dave, you keep passing the critical point in the sequence of events – as people have pointed out again and again – George Zimmerman, an adult who should have known better especially after being specifically told to back off, got out of his car. If GZ never got out nobody would have been assaulted; nobody would have died. Eyewitness accounts at night are pretty flimsy evidence and if GZ had never left his car there would be no eyewitness account.
And TM was a 17 year old. We recognize in this society that there is an age when people start to make adult decisions, generally that is 18 because it is understood that younger people don’t always make rational decisions.
Bad decisions are why people go to jail. Sometimes it is because they decided to lie on paperwork to get Medicaid benefits. George Zimmerman made a bad decision that ended up with Trevon Martin being dead. That is a really bad decision. I can understand feeling bad for GZ. I dont believe he ever wanted to kill anyone – but he did.
“This isn’t the Wild West? We don’t let people punch someone who is stalking them but we let them walk the streets with a gun and pop off when they’re losing a fight? That’s rich!”
We must have watched different westerns growing up.
Yes. A civilized society allows people to defend themselves when they have been physically attacked.
What a civilized society does not do, is we don’t allow people to throw punches at someone because they are following you… even if they happen to reach into their pocket and you aren’t sure if you can out run them. I just rolled my eyes even typing that. A guy approaches you, reaches into his pocket, and you beat him up?! On what paranoid planet is that acceptable?
You really, truly, honestly believe that we as a society should let people launch preemptive physical attacks on one another every time they “feel” threatened?