Leave George Zimmerman alone!

[tadmjones]

Well these comments are about the specific legal case too, and the events surrounding and discussed within, namely during the testimony presented in the specific legal case, and thus I rather believe they are not off topic or randomly manufactured hypotheticals just for fun, but thank you for your ex cathedra pronouncements.

 

And HD fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to participate. It is of course also likely that Martin saw Zimmerman as a meddler, "someone who think they a police" as Jeantel also said, and so wanted to put him in his place.

I actually didn't follow the testimony closely enough to know what TM's friend said in court, ver batim, and not being a legal scholar I would not be able to determine if her testimony was/is actually hearsay, but as to the legal case as put forth by the prosecution , how much weight is given to individual motivations?

 

Of course as opposed to individual's reactions.

Edited July 23, 2013 by tadmjones

[FeatherFall]

I'd just like to remind everyone that you under no obligation to respond to posts that you don't find to be worthwhile. If you think someone has violated the forum rules, please use the report function; do not retaliate by violating the forum rules in turn. We are not online 24 hours a day to read every post.

[FeatherFall]

Isn't that really the question? Whether Martin, at any point, might have considered himself in danger to the point where he was justified in engaging in "self-defense"? And... had events transpired slightly differently, maybe we would be confronted with a case where an alive Martin sought to justify his actions (whether leading to Zimmerman's death or not) because he was being followed, was confronted, perhaps saw a gun, thought this Zimmerman guy was reaching for it for some malicious reason, and reacted to save his own life.

Things may have played out the same way if Martin had beaten Zimmerman to death. Due to some things that never made it into the trial (that most certainly would have if Zimmerman were dead), I believe Martin probably jumped Zimmerman. But I'd be comfortable with an acquittal, because there would be reasonable doubt. The justice system is not charged with omniscience. 
 

 

Pinning someone down as you beat their skull against the pavement is not an act of self-defense.

 

That's not true in every case. If a bystander charges a gunman they have to use the tools at hand, which might happen to include a concrete sidewalk.

[thenelli01]

Okay here is the quote in #149

So if you didn't think I was claiming "Trayvon (a 17 year old 5'11 male) may have reasonably thought that George Zimmerman was going to rape him." even though I (1) never said this anywhere, and (2) explicitly disclaimed this in #148, right above yours, then why did you feel the need to let me know this, and how am I "diverting the issue"? Are you just posting to let me know all the things that I didn't say that are wrong? Again, how does that make sense?....

 

OK before I respond to the rest of the post, this is where I think the issue is. Here is how the whole conversation started:

 

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.

 

 

I think it's a reasonable statement, if your friend calls you and tells you someone is following and watching you, a reasonable response might be, hey, maybe it's some kind of rapist, you should probably be careful. Of course it does not follow that you should break the person's nose and slam their skull into the pavement.

 

What were you referring to when you said "I think it' s a reasonable statement"? Which statement, and be specific. If you weren't referring to my statement then why would you quote me?

Edited July 23, 2013 by thenelli01

[Craig24]

I've been informed by some people who apparently know better (?) that Zimmerman did initiate force simply by following Martin.  Following someone, in their opinion, rises to the level of a threat that justifies assault as an act of self defense.  I call BS but that's what I'm asked to consider. 

[DonAthos]

If Don Athos disagrees with that addition then I stand corrected; otherwise it seemed clearly implicit to me.

I think we understand each other perfectly well, and I thank you again for your efforts.

 

You're welcome.  =P

Just so you know, I wasn't being facetious at all. Finding someone... willing, interested, and capable of being reasonable can be like discovering an oasis in the desert.

 

Actually, you may have a point.  This does merit further inquiry.

 

But alright; for this specific case I sincerely doubt that Martin was afraid of anything more than getting caught.

That's certainly possible, though if we were to pursue the matter further (and I understand that does not interest you), I should like to determine what Martin was doing such that he feared being caught. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I'm not aware that he was engaged in any illegal activities at the time.

 

Honestly, I really don't care to discuss the issue itself much further, but I think that given the full context of his life, Zimmerman's actions and his own, it's almost certain that he was well aware of the situation.

 

A full evaluation of that night, however, would be required to determine that with certainty- and that's what I no longer care to do.

I understand completely. And after all, that's what the jury in the case was tasked to do, and they've reached their verdict.

 

But we should probably start another thread about the broader point (perceived threats and objective self-defense); but something about hypothetical people with fictional names who don't carry all of this baggage.

I would thoroughly enjoy that.

Depending on who else participates, so would I.

 

Things may have played out the same way if Martin had beaten Zimmerman to death. Due to some things that never made it into the trial (that most certainly would have if Zimmerman were dead), I believe Martin probably jumped Zimmerman. But I'd be comfortable with an acquittal, because there would be reasonable doubt. The justice system is not charged with omniscience.

I agree. But when we equate taking up "Zimmerman's side" as a defense of self-defense itself (as I believe some have done), it leads me to wonder, because I can easily imagine a chain of (only slightly different) events that may have had Martin asserting that his own actions were undertaken in self-defense. That seems to me at least a plausible reason for the confrontation turning physical initially, though sure, maybe Martin attacked Zimmerman because... his mind had been warped by past drug use, or something like that. I'm certainly not ruling that out. And if Martin said that it was self-defense, and if Zimmerman said that he was only reaching for his cellphone and not his gun (assuming Zimmerman survived), well, then we (or rather, the jury) would have to assess those claims.

But if Martin did survive and claim self-defense in this manner, I wonder how we should assess it?

[FeatherFall]

If the "what if" scenario had played out, we never would have heard about it. I think that's why a lot of Zimmerman supporters are so emotional (including myself). The case wouldn't have gone to trial if national media and career victims hadn't pretended the encounter was about race. This man's whole life took a hard hit because Al Sharpton needs a scapegoat to stay relevant and champion his party's pet cause of gun control. Without a scaperacist, Sharpton and friends would never have harnessed youth movements dedicated to fighting black on black crime or the "school to prison" pipeline. The idea that everyone has a right to self-defense was undermined in the process.

On the other hand, if one kid who probably attacked and beat a man to death after possibly casing houses was acquitted, it would simply be a recognition that the justice system is not omniscient and errs on the side of reasonable doubt. Edit: There certainly would be no talk of subsequent federal prosecution, or the feds continuing to impound skittles and tea like they have Zimmerman's gun.

Edited July 24, 2013 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

Following someone, in their opinion, rises to the level of a threat that justifies assault as an act of self defense. 

The benchmark is what's reasonable cause to fear immediate great bodily harm. I'd say people who claim to have such fear because they are being followed are not being reasonable, especially if they wait around for four minutes instead of fleeing to safety or calling for help.

[DonAthos]

If the "what if" scenario had played out, we never would have heard about it. I think that's why a lot of Zimmerman supporters are so emotional (including myself). The case wouldn't have gone to trial if national media and career victims hadn't pretended the encounter was about race. This man's whole life took a hard hit because Al Sharpton needs a scapegoat to stay relevant and champion his party's pet cause of gun control. Without a scaperacist, Sharpton and friends would never have harnessed youth movements dedicated to fighting black on black crime or the "school to prison" pipeline. The idea that everyone has a right to self-defense was undermined in the process.

Yes, I understand. I have little charity for Sharpton or his ilk, or gun control, and I certainly hate those issues being used as a cover to undermine self-defense.

 

On the other hand, if one kid who probably attacked and beat a man to death after possibly casing houses was acquitted, it would simply be a recognition that the justice system is not omniscient and errs on the side of reasonable doubt.

Yes. And some might even contend that there is some justice to the idea that if you're followed by a man who has a gun, who then takes an action which might be construed as reaching for that gun, that some action taken in self-defense is warranted (whether or not Martin's specific actions could then be condoned).

 

Edit: There certainly would be no talk of subsequent federal prosecution, or the feds continuing to impound skittles and tea like they have Zimmerman's gun.

I find the idea of further prosecution of Zimmerman repugnant.

[tadmjones]

Well these comments are about the specific legal case too, and the events surrounding and discussed within, namely during the testimony presented in the specific legal case, and thus I rather believe they are not off topic or randomly manufactured hypotheticals just for fun, but thank you for your ex cathedra pronouncements.

 

And HD fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to participate. It is of course also likely that Martin saw Zimmerman as a meddler, "someone who think they a police" as Jeantel also said, and so wanted to put him in his place.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If this thread continues, people should start naming their sources.  Very few people involved seem to lack a firm handle on Objectivism and its principles; the vast majority of our issue seems to stem from how to apply them to this case (which stems from confusion about the facts).

 

However, this indicates something interesting. . .

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26036

[FeatherFall]

Sourcing would have been a good idea, especially due to the downright criminal reporting of some media outlets. But I was treating this thread casually and don't really feel like going back and sourcing every specific I've mentioned. I will go as far as to source what I believe to be the #1 misrepresentation about this case, and of course I'll source any other specific claim if asked.

The most extreme form of the misrepresentation goes something like this, "Zimmerman disobeyed police order and refused to go back to his truck." Ari Armstrong, Diana Hsieh and Paul Hsieh recently perpetuated this misrepresentation to various degrees when they condemned Zimmerman for (paraphrasing), "following martin against the advice of dispatch." 

Audio
People are perpetuating this misrepresentation in the comments on the source itself! The video shows "911", but it may have been a non-emergency number that Zimmerman called.

 

Transcript

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

I understand that the statement of the operator could be construed as a request (or even advice) not to follow. But I don't think that's what it was. I think it was to cover the dispatcher in case somebody got shot. For instance, the statement prevents Martin's parents from suing dispatch for Martin's death. If Zimmerman had gone back to his truck and Martin proceeded to commit a crime, the city would have denied that this was a request to go back to the truck - in other words, the verbiage is such that nobody could claim a crime happened because dispatch requested Zimmerman refrain from intervention. Indeed, a request doesn't exist in the sentence; you have to infer one. 

Edited July 25, 2013 by FeatherFall

[Kate87]

Okay, then.

If you're assaulted by some masculine monstrosity who just towers above you, would you rather have a pistol or a pretty pink can of mace?

 

Guns are point-and-click death machines; yes.  That's actually the entire purpose of a gun.

But if you take guns away from people, such point-and-click conflicts will revert to contests of speed, strength and raw aggression.  And if you think it's terrible that people get shot to death in their homes, today- just take away their guns and watch them get stabbed in broad daylight.

 

Murder will exist so long as irrationalism does; all such laws can determine is who dies and how.  Think the implications through for just a few minutes.

----------

 

Tadmjones nailed it several posts ago- the ONLY question relevant to this case is whether Zimmerman or Martin initiated the force which turned lethal.

Answering that question entails many, many peripheral questions which it depends on, but that's all we need to decide.  Period.

 

Of course I would rather have a pistol than mace to face an attacker with. But that's not the point. The problem with anyone being allowed to own and carry a point and click death machine, is that you give the power to end your life to any and every stranger. I would rather other people did not have that power over me.

 

And please don't say that criminals would still have guns if you banned them. If you properly enforced the ban (like in the UK), there would be no guns for criminals either. Finally, yes, other forms of killing may rise if you banned guns (eg knife crime) but knives are not point and click. Again, I don't want another person to have the power to extinguish my life with a click of a button.

 

PS - I agree with you that Tadmjones's analysis is right, but only in the context of guns being unquestionably legal to own. Whoever initiated the force goes to jail yes, but if there is no way for the struggle to become lethal at the click of a button, both parties walk away alive and that makes all the difference. Even if one is severely beaten, they have more chance of living than against a death machine. The death machine, ie the legality of gun ownership, is the issue here. Yet the main issue gets completely wiped out by America's irrational gun fetish (perpetrated by the politcal right) and irrational race fetish (perpetrated by the political left). The debate is so far from being rational that it has become a farce like much of America's political debate.

[Nicky]

Again, I don't want another person to have the power to extinguish my life with a click of a button.

Well, you better start a campaign to ban buttons then.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Finally, yes, other forms of killing may rise if you banned guns (eg knife crime) but knives are not point and click.

No; they are stabby.  And they will make you equally dead.

 

It's not like the convenience of killing you makes you any less dead; death by bullet is equal to death by knife or fork or pencil or bare hands. . . Unless you're referring to the quantity of suffering involved.

And if you are referring to physical suffering then there is a massive difference: would you rather be shot in the head or disemboweled?  (Or hanged, or burned, or impaled, or dismembered. . . ?)

 

And please don't say that criminals would still have guns if you banned them. If you properly enforced the ban (like in the UK), there would be no guns for criminals either.

I would dispute this as well, on the grounds of -um- every single law that has ever been broken throughout the history of mankind.

Heroine's illegal too, and that law is enforced with a certain special zeal.  So then, logically, it doesn't exist in America.  Right?

 

But sure; let's say that it's possible to control a determined human being.  For the purpose of this immediate discussion.

 

Again, I don't want another person to have the power to extinguish my life with a click of a button.

Please stop here for a moment and allow this to fully sink in.

 

Every single person, whom you have ever had firsthand contact with, has had that power.  Your friends, your family, your coworkers, random strangers you walk past; if any of these people had sincerely wanted you dead, you very well might be.

Do you know how many ways there are to skin a metaphorical cat?  Do you really think that your very LIFE persists because nobody else has been ABLE to end it?

 

NOBODY HAS TRIED TO END YOUR LIFE BECAUSE NOBODY HAS WANTED TO.  The availability of methods is irrelevant because there are an INFINITE number of methods available, at all times!!

And I really hate to repeat myself, but most of these methods are far messier and nastier than guns.

 

 

Even if one is severely beaten, they have more chance of living than against a death machine. The death machine, ie the legality of gun ownership, is the issue here.

I'm sure George Zimmerman agrees wholeheartedly.  After all, were it not for his gun, he could've avoided this entire unpleasant episode!

 

He would, of course, be very highly extremely dead.  But at least he wouldn't have gotten shot.

-----------------

 

Your misunderstanding lies in thinking of guns as some sort of unnatural object, foreign to this world and immune to its laws, which endows its users with some transcendental "power to end your life."

This simply has no relation to reality.

 

Guns are essentially the same as all other technology.  They are an extension of our knowledge of ballistics (which allowed us to invent fireworks and space shuttles) applied to the task of killing.

Yes, they make it easier to kill, but this is a difference of degree and not of category- any tool or no tools at all could do the trick equally well.

 

And if he weren't armed that night, George Zimmerman would be not-quite-so-living proof of this principle.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[FeatherFall]

Kate, my advice to you is to avoid sidewalks.

[mdegges]

@Harrison: Are you arguing that it's just as effective to kill a person with [bare hands, knives, crowbars, etc] than with guns? If that were true, guns wouldn't be necessary tools at all- not even for our military.

 

@FeatherFall: Is there a thread about when a person is justified in shooting another person? My understanding is that if X initiates force against Y, X has forfeited his rights and Y has the right to defend himself- but to what extent? (By any means necessary, until Y is safe or X is no longer a threat?)

Edited July 26, 2013 by mdegges

[Nicky]

@Harrison: Are you arguing that it's just as effective to kill a person with [bare hands, knives, crowbars, etc] than with guns? If that were true, guns wouldn't be necessary tools at all- not even for our military.

The military fights other men. If the military was fighting unarmed women and children, you're right, they wouldn't need guns. They could just snap their heads off.

I'm going to say more than that: if I was a murderer looking to kill a woman, I would prefer that she live in the UK, rather than the US.

In the US, I would have no choice but to use a gun to do it (because I wouldn't want to walk into a gunfight with a knife), and it still would be risky. In the UK, I could just cut the power, use a cellphone jammer, break into her home, and stab or strangle her without any risks. There would be absolutely nothing she could do to stop me. The outcome would be 100% assured. Even if she had a knife or bat, it would be too easy for me to overpower her.

That's what she is missing in all this: guns are a great equalizer, which prevent physically strong and trained fighters from threatening or killing everyone else. If you look at the history if feudalism (the best example is Japan, because there advanced weapons were introduced suddenly rather than invented gradually), it was guns, which allowed non-warrior casts to fight using something other than agricultural tools, which ended it.

That applies today: once you look at the statistics scientifically, and dismiss the fabrication that gun ownership causes crime to be higher (it doesn't, as I have proven many times on this site), you can put two and two together and realize that for weaker, untrained people, guns provide security and freedom, not danger.

[JASKN]

A second juror spoke out today and said she thinks Zimmerman "got away with murder, in my heart." She says the law, "As it was read to me," meant she couldn't prove intent. But he is guilty in her heart she says. She says she was the hung juror for 9 hours.

No breaks for Zimmerman, other than a narrow not-guilty.

[softwareNerd]

A second juror spoke out today and said she thinks Zimmerman "got away with murder, in my heart." She says the law, "As it was read to me," meant she couldn't prove intent. But he is guilty in her heart she says. She says she was the hung juror for 9 hours.

I can imagine what it must be like: going back to life and work after being a juror on a high-profile case that ends up with a controversial verdict. Family, extended family, friends, co-workers, and even some acquaintances will include people who think the verdict was unjust. It might even mean being "defriended" on Facebook! Of course, for a good juror, it is a way to figure out who your true friends are: the one's who are willing to accept that you did what you honestly thought was just -- but, I can understand why some would want to equivocate. 

 

Perhaps, before they're released, jurors should be asked to agree to a silent period -- nothing legally binding, just with each person asked to be on their honor code. If some of them disagree, they can say so plainly. However, I think there's a chance that if it is done that way, as a group, and if weaker jurors have that to point to, it will keep some of them out of the public discourse for a while.

Edited July 26, 2013 by softwareNerd

[FeatherFall]

@FeatherFall: Is there a thread about when a person is justified in shooting another person? My understanding is that if X initiates force against Y, X has forfeited his rights and Y has the right to defend himself- but to what extent? (By any means necessary, until Y is safe or X is no longer a threat?)

I think we covered that question in this thread. The short answer is you're justified when you have reason to fear great bodily harm and deadly force is the safest option for you. The long answer is that different states treat the question slightly differently.

Edited July 26, 2013 by FeatherFall

[Kate87]

No; they are stabby.  And they will make you equally dead.

 

It's not like the convenience of killing you makes you any less dead; death by bullet is equal to death by knife or fork or pencil or bare hands. . . Unless you're referring to the quantity of suffering involved.

And if you are referring to physical suffering then there is a massive difference: would you rather be shot in the head or disemboweled?  (Or hanged, or burned, or impaled, or dismembered. . . ?)

 

I would dispute this as well, on the grounds of -um- every single law that has ever been broken throughout the history of mankind.

Heroine's illegal too, and that law is enforced with a certain special zeal.  So then, logically, it doesn't exist in America.  Right?

 

But sure; let's say that it's possible to control a determined human being.  For the purpose of this immediate discussion.

 

Please stop here for a moment and allow this to fully sink in.

 

Every single person, whom you have ever had firsthand contact with, has had that power.  Your friends, your family, your coworkers, random strangers you walk past; if any of these people had sincerely wanted you dead, you very well might be.

Do you know how many ways there are to skin a metaphorical cat?  Do you really think that your very LIFE persists because nobody else has been ABLE to end it?

 

NOBODY HAS TRIED TO END YOUR LIFE BECAUSE NOBODY HAS WANTED TO.  The availability of methods is irrelevant because there are an INFINITE number of methods available, at all times!!

And I really hate to repeat myself, but most of these methods are far messier and nastier than guns.

 

 

I'm sure George Zimmerman agrees wholeheartedly.  After all, were it not for his gun, he could've avoided this entire unpleasant episode!

 

He would, of course, be very highly extremely dead.  But at least he wouldn't have gotten shot.

-----------------

 

Your misunderstanding lies in thinking of guns as some sort of unnatural object, foreign to this world and immune to its laws, which endows its users with some transcendental "power to end your life."

This simply has no relation to reality.

 

Guns are essentially the same as all other technology.  They are an extension of our knowledge of ballistics (which allowed us to invent fireworks and space shuttles) applied to the task of killing.

Yes, they make it easier to kill, but this is a difference of degree and not of category- any tool or no tools at all could do the trick equally well.

 

And if he weren't armed that night, George Zimmerman would be not-quite-so-living proof of this principle.

 

Yes knives are stabby, that's why they are also illegal to own and carry. Do you see a massive problem of switchblade violence in the US or the UK where these items are banned? No. I am glad that knives are banned as well as guns. If I were to carry a knife for self defence it is more likely that I will be stabbed (http://safe.met.police.uk/knife_crime_and_gun_crime/get_the_facts.html).

 

Yes there are infinite ways to kill me, but with gun and knife bans those two methods are removed. So America bans knives but not guns. Why? Because there is an irrational cultural fetishism of guns but not with knives. You say I view guns as an unnatural object - you are right - I do view them this way because they are designed to end human life with no other purpose. Only law enforcement and military people should have access to such technology.

 

I agree that a gun ban in the presence of a gun culture will be less effective. The UK has never had a gun crime problem to speak of and so its obvious that lifting the ban would increase the availability of guns to criminals and increase deaths. With America's irrational gun culture however, a ban may be ineffective because in the short term, only law abiding citizens would hand guns in to the police.

 

So you have to begin by destroying the gun culture. This is what killed Treyvon Martin.

 

That's what she is missing in all this: guns are a great equalizer, which prevent physically strong and trained fighters from threatening or killing everyone else. If you look at the history if feudalism (the best example is Japan, because there advanced weapons were introduced suddenly rather than invented gradually), it was guns, which allowed non-warrior casts to fight using something other than agricultural tools, which ended it.

 

Guns may be an equlizer, and I would love to have a gun if I was about to be attacked. But to make it legal for citizens to own guns is a recipe for social disaster. Like with knives, if you own a gun you are more likely to be shot: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

[softwareNerd]

... ... to make it legal for citizens to own guns is a recipe for social disaster.

Though this might sound right in theory, history does not bear it out, so there must be a chink in the theory.

[Kate87]

softwareNerd, I agree, the chink is whether there is a gun culture or not. For example if you are Jewish and in Nazi Germany which is obsessed with the military, it would be a social disaster to ban Jewish gun ownership. Or if you are black and in the US in the 18th century under slavery, it was a social disaster for blacks to be banned from having guns. What unites these two examples is that guns are already heavily in the equation because there is a gun culture.

 

Destroy the gun culture, and destroy the gun problem.

 

Can someone tell me why the UK which does not have a gun culture should make it legal for people to own guns, when even the police do not carry guns? It must sound radical for an American to hear of the police not carrying guns, but this is the result of not having a gun culture: a more peaceful society.

[softwareNerd]

I don't know what you mean by "gun culture". Clearly, you don't mean "widespread ownership of guns". From the examples you gave, it sounds like you're not critiquing "gun culture", but laws that deny gun ownership to oppressed minorities. So, I cannot follow up on your point unless I know what you mean.