Leave George Zimmerman alone!

[Nicky]

Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was a thug solely based on his race, evidenced by the fact that he said that "these a-- holes always get away" when referring to Trayvon.

What attracted me to Objectivism is the use of logic in formulating conclusions from premises. I guess that's where we're different.

[softwareNerd]

Zimmerman assumed Trayvon was a thug solely based on his race,...

No, there is no proof of this. If you believe Zimmerman, that was not the primary reason. You should learn about the details of this case before you make this assumption, otherwise you're really committing the prejudice you accuse Zimmerman of.

Zimmerman's account is this: he saw a young, black male (remember the context here is that a series of burglaries in his neighborhood had been committed by young black males). It was raining, and dark, not exactly a time when people would stroll around leisurely. Trayon was not hurrying along a sidewalk , but was on the lawn of a house, leisurely looking at the house. Pretty odd thing to do in the rain, to someone else's house. Don't you think any neighborhood watch person would consider that suspicious and call it in.

 

..., evidenced by the fact that he said that "these a-- holes always get away" when referring to Trayvon.

There's nothing racist about this. Some months before he had called the cops in a similar situation and had said that he does not want to confront the person. By the time the cops came, the person had gone. "These assholes" shows a presumption of the person being up to no good; it does not indicate racism.

When we look at Zimmerman's background, we see that he had mentored a couple of black kids. So, clearly, blackness itself is not something he shrinks from. More impressive is that Zimmerman was active in getting this local cops to investigate the assault by a (white) son of a cop, on a homeless black man. He did not assume that all homeless black men are guilty.

 

Zimmerman isn't the only one who profiled Trayvon.  The police did initially as well. When someone shoots someone else they usually run a background check on the person that does the shooting right?  Well not in this case they ran a background check on Trayvon and not Zimmerman.  They automatically assumed that Trayvon was guilty and let Zimmerman go without even a background check.  Zimmerman didn't get arrested until 40+ days later.

I would never claim that racism does not exist and that people do not act unfairly toward others because they're black. However, Zimmerman is not jesus Christ, so I wouldn't want him to suffer for the sins of others.

As for this case, you don't have to believe Zimmerman's account up to the encounter. Even if Zimmerman thought "all black kids are evil", his following Trayvon does not mean Trayvon can start a physical fight with him. If he was innocent of casing homes to steal (which is not absolutely clear, given that he had a picture of women's jewelry on his cell-phone), I can understand him getting angry. Even if he started a fight with Zimmerman, this was not just some pushing and shoving. He "broke" his nose, and was hitting his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman -- and the culture that tells people they can resolve their problems through physical force -- is responsible for the killing.

Edited July 17, 2013 by softwareNerd

[tadmjones]

I think people may be confused about what racial profiling means. It is my assumption that it means taking someone's race into account with other factors when making a determination related to behavior or affiliation... For instance, assuming a black guy with tats who is dressed like a thug in Los Angeles is not a part of MS13... Because MS13 is an hispanic gang. As I understand it, that is racial profiling. But there is nothing racist about it.

Could I get a definition of racial profiling from those who have condemned it?

[tadmjones]

hmm don't know what happened to the post above but

I think the term 'racial profiling' should only be used to describe actions or motivations of government agencies and their agents acting in that capacity.

Maybe it's just me, but when that term is applied to an individuals thought it seems to smack of a violation of 'new think'.

[Grames]

Black man shoots white teenager in self defense, is acquitted  (Rochester News)

[FeatherFall]

That news from Rochester paints a clearer picture of a person's right to self defense. Roderick Scott  undeniably went to confront someone about a crime and still isn't guilty of manslaughter.

[mdegges]

@FeatherFall, 2046, etal:

 

There are a ton of little events that lead to Martin's death, and I don't want to speculate about what might have happened IF- but there were some key points that stood out to me from Zimmerman and Jeantel's accounts. Overall, Zimmerman wasn't properly trained. He got out of his car, not knowing where the 'suspicious individual' was. He put himself in harms way even though he knew police were on the way. He had multiple opportunities to identify himself and his purpose to Martin, yet chose not to- Jeantel said this lead Martin to believe that Zimmerman was trying to sexually pursue him. He did not identify himself when he was face to face with Martin + warn him that he was carrying a weapon.

 

I think it's likely that both individuals were scared of each other and didn't use the best judgement. However, Zimmerman was the adult, the neighborhood watch captain, etc, and should have known how to handle himself.

Edited July 18, 2013 by mdegges

[mdegges]

Oh also, I wanted to repost this comment that was written in response to Thomas Sowell's article "Is this still America?":

 

Mr. Sowell, I'm very glad you're satisfied with the verdict. However, I wonder if you were a teenager again and living in today's world, would you still feel the same? Trayvon felt comfortable walking through his dad's neighborhood to go to the store. He should have. He felt comfortable taking a short cut, he should have. He's an American, this is 2013 and everyone knows the days are long gone when blacks, especially black boys couldn't walk through white neighborhoods without being hunted and persecuted like they were in your day.

 

Trayvon didn't have a gun but maybe now black teen boys need to get CW permits and start carrying anytime they contemplate going to the store @ 7pm for snacks while visiting family or friends in another neighborhood. Should they hesitate before pulling their hoodies up to protect themselves from the weather? And if some stranger, some weirdo starts following them should they run and be accused of guilty behavior? Should they confront the weirdo following them? Or should they stand their ground and drop the stranger when he exits his vehicle?

 

How would you respond to this? Seems like a reasonable line of questioning to me.

Edited July 18, 2013 by mdegges

[2046]

Umm no, you should not "drop" the stranger following you and slam their skull into the pavement repeatedly. Namely because that would be an overt criminal act of aggression. But I mean I'm comfortable with #107, maybe Zimmerman should have identified himself to Martin and why he was watching him, but he probably didn't expect to get attacked either. Perhaps it would have gone better if he did what you say, but I think it's hard to say whether "he should have known," it's hard to say what other people should have known, especially when you're in that kind of situation. But I mean, is that the core of Zimmerman's offense, that he failed to tell Martin who he was and why he was following him? Seems less than the amount saying his actions were not morally condonable, maybe one could say, based on that that he made a practical mistake in judgment, but I don't think that is a moral failure on Zimmerman's part.

[mdegges]

That's fair. I agree that no one should 'drop' anyone unless it's in self-defense.. which it may have been in this case, but we'll never know (see para 2). Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, who appeared to be a suspicious individual. He also had the right to carry a concealed weapon. Martin had the right to confront the "creepy" individual who was following him, who he thought might be a rapist (says Jeantel). Up until this point, everyone was within their rights. Then Martin and Zimmerman exchanged words. (We can't be sure as to exactly what was said.) Zimmerman reached for his cell phone (to dial 911, he says) and moments later, Martin attacked Zimmerman.
 

(Obviously the reason why Martin did this can only be speculated. To me, the most realistic account is this: As Zimmerman reached for his cell phone, Martin thought he was reaching for a weapon. If true, Martin was within his rights to immobilize Zimmerman, as is taught in self-defense 101.. punch the nose, bang em up. According to Zimmerman, Martin saw his concealed weapon when he was on the ground and continued to beat him, perhaps fearing that Zimmerman intended to shoot him, or hold him at gunpoint, etc.)

Zimmerman, of course, also feared for his life and eventually shot Martin. (Legally okay, but morally right? Could the situation have been handled in another way?)

 

But I mean, is that the core of Zimmerman's offense, that he failed to tell Martin who he was and why he was following him? Seems less than the amount saying his actions were not morally condonable, maybe one could say, based on that that he made a practical mistake in judgment, but I don't think that is a moral failure on Zimmerman's part.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Imo Zimmerman was unprepared to handle a 'suspicious individual' and should have just met the police at the mailboxes or gone home. (I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.)

Edited July 18, 2013 by mdegges

[Nicky]

I think it's likely that both individuals were scared of each other and didn't use the best judgement. However, Zimmerman was the adult, the neighborhood watch captain, etc, and should have known how to handle himself.

There's just one little fault with your logic there. It's that fights aren't caused by someone failing to "know how to handle themselves", they are caused by someone failing to not physically assault another person.

They are caused by someone initiating physical force.

So, unless you have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who physically assaulted Trayvon Martin (which you don't), you are wrong to blame him for this fight.

 

The person to blame is the person who threw the first punch. I don't know for a fact who that was, but, based on the evidence available to me, it was more likely Martin than Zimmerman. In fact, based on physical evidence, Martin was the only one to throw punches.

 

Just as importantly, the jury in the case unanimously agreed that there is no proof that the person who initiated the fight was George Zimmerman. You shouldn't unequivocally blame someone for a fight you don't know they started. It's wrong. Stop it. The person to blame is always the one who started the fight. Even if that person is 17, and the victim 30.

 

I'm 30. If I was attacked by a 17 yo., I would refuse to accept any responsibility for the fight. No matter what I supposedly said or did to prompt him to attack me, no matter what the outcome. I refuse to accept a society in which people, adults or minors, can't refrain from initiating force on principle. I refuse, I refuse, I refuse. I can't make it any clearer than this. I refuse legally, I refuse morally, and I refuse in any other context you wish to define the word "responsibility".

Edited July 18, 2013 by Nicky

[tadmjones]

(I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.)
 

 

 

 

I have seen it argued that it was Trayvon's voice screaming for help because Zimmerman was pointing his weapon at him at point blank range and that Zimmerman may have smiled inwardly before pulling trigger, just speculation but interestting nonetheless.

Edited July 18, 2013 by tadmjones

[Nicky]

(I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.)

I have seen it argued that no one should ever leave their house without a legal firearm. Not only have I seen it argued, I have seen myself wholeheartedly agree. 

 

Being prepared to defend yourself is always the moral and brave path to take. Walking around defenseless is for cowards.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Nicky

[Nicky]

If true, Martin was within his rights to immobilize Zimmerman, as is taught in self-defense 101.. punch the nose, bang em up.

That sounds more "suicide 101" than "self-defense 101".

And private citizens are within their right to confront, and then immobilize people who carry legal firearms, by punching them in the nose and "bangin' them up", upon seeing them reach for an object on their person?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Nicky

[mdegges]

Thanks Nicky- that is a great post. But are you saying that I can't defend myself from what appears to be a rapist (who stared at me in his car, followed me as I continued walking, then running, and finally got out of his car and appeared to be looking around for me) when he reaches for a concealed item as I approach him to ask wtf he's doing? Do I have to wait for him to pull out a gun or a knife before I react? By then it will be too late for me to do anything since I have no weapons myself.

Edited July 18, 2013 by mdegges

[Nicky]

Thanks Nicky- that is a great post. But are you saying that I can't defend myself from what appears to be a rapist (who stared at me in his car, followed me as I continued walking, then running, and finally got out of his car and appeared to be looking around for me) when he reaches for a concealed item as I approach him to ask wtf he's doing? Do I have to wait for him to pull out a gun or a knife before I react?

Depends. Are you a young black male, and the supposed rapist a 30 yo. hispanic male? In that case no, you really aren't supposed to defend yourself against that "rapist" because, I assure you, he's not looking to try to rape you. He thinks you're a criminal. (and Trayvon knew that - he seemed like a smart kid; it was his dumb friend on the phone who suggested that the white guy could be a rapist).

But, if you're a young woman and the person following you is a man, then yes, the situation you describe justifies acting at that point. You would be wise to PROFILE him as a likely rapist, and then act on your PROFILE.

Just don't use that word when the cops come. Most of your fellow citizens seem to have an irrational aversion to it. I only used it to make a point (same point SoftwareNerd I think made earlier, that profiling people is more often than not rational), could've just as easily said "think/thinking", or "reason/rationale".

Edited July 18, 2013 by Nicky

[mdegges]

Why? Because men never rape boys? Or hispanic men never stalk and kill black men?

Edited July 18, 2013 by mdegges

[Nicky]

Why? Because men never rape boys? Or hispanic men never stalk and kill black men?

You mentioned rape before. White/hispanic men don't really stalk and rape black strangers, no. It may happen on rare occasion, but it's really not something for a 5 ft 11 in black male being followed by "a creepy ass cracker" to worry about.

In other words, that's not a good profile to make, in that situation.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Nicky

[Nicky]

Nice to see that not everyone has gone mad just yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bO3A5bAq8#at=74

 

Sorry, I forgot how to embed videos.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Nicky

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

Thanks Nicky- that is a great post. But are you saying that I can't defend myself from what appears to be a rapist (who stared at me in his car, followed me as I continued walking, then running, and finally got out of his car and appeared to be looking around for me) when he reaches for a concealed item as I approach him to ask wtf he's doing?

Given this information and ONLY this information, you would absolutely be justified in preemptively punching your pursuer- although at no point would you be justified in taking it anywhere near what Trayvon Martin did.

But objectivity requires that a man cannot be expected to know more than he knows (such as the motives of your pursuer), nor can he allow himself to know less than he knows (such as the motives of George Zimmerman, in reality, when he followed Martin).

 

Given this information, your assessment (that self-defense is called for) would be entirely accurate. . . So long as the rest of the context is left neatly under the rug.

 

In short: your accurate assessment isn't applicable to Trayvon Martin.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Oh also, I wanted to repost this comment that was written in response to Thomas Sowell's article "Is this still America?":

 

 

How would you respond to this? Seems like a reasonable line of questioning to me.

I would look at the poor excuse for a human being who uttered such a statement and ask him what he's referring to- because it sure as HELL isn't Trayvon Martin!

 

 

Whoever said that originally either lacks the ability/desire to think critically, or is nothing more than your average Liberal evader whose thoughts and words have exactly as much connection to reality as a Creationist's.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

He may as well have asked whether it was just for Adam to eat of the fruit, after Eve did- see Peikoff on the arbitrary.

[FeatherFall]

I don't think we should forget the words Martin said to Zimmerman before he reached for his phone. According to Zimmerman, something like this went on (If you want a source I'll find it):

Martin: "You got a problem?"
Zimmerman: "No."

Martin: "You do now."

That's a threat, and it's a damn good reason to reach for a tool of communication or self defense. People seem to be comfortable throwing out this kind of testimony from Zimmerman simply because he is the accused. That ain't right. 

Edited July 19, 2013 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

Also, I think it's worth discussing why Zimmerman might have felt comfortable (if we can use that word) leaving his car. Smart thieves don't want to get caught. They attempt to evade scrutiny or capture. They don't commit assaults outside of their own territory because they don't know who will be there to back up their victims and they don't want to add charges to their rap sheet. Zimmerman thought he may have been following a thief and didn't expect an assault.

[thenelli01]

I am amazed that people are even entertaining the idea that it was a reasonable thought that George Zimmerman was potentially a rapist of a 5'11 black almost fully-grown 17 year old.