The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Why does this always have to be about race?

GZ made it about race. From the way I understand the event, GZ essentially profiled Trayvon because he was a young Black male out at night walking in a hoodie.

I seriously doubt GZ would have done what he did had Trayvon been White or Hispanic.

This is the point. There wasn't enough to convict, because the details aren't clear. Therefore, he was found not guilty.

No, there was not enough to convict. I think what is making people upset about the outcome was that GZ did not have to approach Trayvon, and thus kill him.

GZ took the law into his own hands when it really was not necessary.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

However, this is how our judicial system works - innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Of course. Then again, where was Trayvon Martin's trial? Zimmerman made himself the police, attorney, judge, and jury for Trayvon Martin.

I know the above can be said for all alleged self-defense (and the awful Stand Your Ground laws) situations. We are talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in this thread.

It isn't just the general public who has issues with the outcome. There are attorneys and legal experts, some of whom sat in the courtroom everyday, who have issues with the outcome.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Why does this always have to be about race?

Martin seemed to fit the profile of the alleged burglars in the neighborhood. That was a race, gender, and age profile.

People confuse the existence of a profile with permission to racially profile. I know the profile for all types of crimes, white men of certain ages fit quite a few of these profiles. I do not racially profile white men in the offchance they are about to commit one of these offenses.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People confuse the existence of a profile with permission to racially profile. I know the profile for all types of crimes, white men of certain ages fit quite a few of these profiles. I do not racially profile white men in the offchance they are about to commit one of these offenses.

Cough cough serial killers cough cough. This is why the Aileen Wuornos case took so long to solve. She didn't fit the profile. If people would have thought outside the box her crimes might have been fewer.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

Yes, George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when Trayvon attacked him. Too bad that Trayvon couldn't be at the trial to tell his side of the story.

No one knows who threw the first punch. Oh, wait, two people know. But, one couldn't be at the trial.

And, with all due respect, your last line looks like you are blaming Trayvon (and please, check the spelling of his name) for his own death. What did Trayvon do? He made a decision to walk to a store and buy some goodies. He made the decision to walk home with his hoodie up while talking on his cell phone.

George Zimmerman made a decision that a teenager (and I will take race out of it for this argument - but, please know that not for one minute do I believe that race didn't play a huge role in this) walking down a street, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, talking on his phone, was up to no good and suspicious. All of George Zimmerman's choices and decisions from that moment led to what happened.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

It is best to avoid these types of disclaimers. In addition to potentially insulting people's intelligence, you prepare people for an outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking statement. There was nothing outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive or shocking about your post. I disagree with much of it but not because it is outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking.

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

Yeah, some of us agree the prosecution did not have enough evidence to meet their burden of proof. Some of us acknowledged that some of our thoughts on this case were not properly introduced by the prosecution or proven in a court of law. The defense went above and beyond but the onus was on the prosecution.

As for what Martin should have done, that is subjective as is what constitutes "stand your ground." That is one of the many criticisms of laws that take self-defense to the next level. I, as an individual, cannot tell everyone in the world when they should feel threatened nor can I tell everyone with 100% certainty what they should do 100% of the time. Should Trayvon Martin have gotten off the phone with his friend and called 911? In hindsight, MAYBE. We can all think of things that we do and in hindsight we are like "oh crap, that could have gone HORRIBLY wrong." When someone is walking to the car late at night and they get nervous and stay on the phone with a friend...should they call 911 instead? Hmmmm...the what ifs are endless in life. The only difference is that we know the outcome in the Martin-Zimmerman altercation. And he still could've been shot and killed if he called 911. People get shot and killed after calling 911 all the time. Hell...Zimmerman, himself, shot and killed someone after calling 911. Talk about 911 not saving the day....

Victim precipitation is victim precipitation. It is not victim blame. People precipitate their own victimization all of the time. Martin precipitated his own victimization. But, to blame Martin is to place the onus on the person who, although he may have been a good ass kicker, did not have a gun. I refuse to believe that it JUST SO HAPPENS that Zimmerman had a gun (the #1 facilitating factor for crime and violence) and ended up shooting and killing someone. The logic doesn't follow but the burden of proof requires evidence beyond what I consider to be logical.

On that note, I would like for people to think about what they would do if they were minding their own business and someone seemed to be following them. Then that person sits in the car and watches you OR comes up to you and asks you where you're going. Yeah...I'm a smartass already and I can tell you that if I felt I couldn't get away, even if I called 911, I may find a way to cuss the person out and may feel as though I was about to fight for my life. Again, even if Martin punched Zimmerman first, I believe Martin could have felt that he was defending his life. I refuse to believe that Zimmerman was innocently surveying the area and JUST SO HAPPENED to have a gun.

Martin: *turns around and walks up to Zimmerman* Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I'm neighborhood watch...where are you walking to?
Martin: Kick rocks, dude, why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I mean you no harm...blessings to you....
Martin: *punch*
Zimmerman: *getting his head banged on the street...somehow they end up in the grass (hmmmm....)* Oh shit, I FORGOT I HAD THIS GUN!!!!! I can't fight...so...BANG BANG BITCH!

Yeah...the prosecutors sucked (as do many attorneys hired by the state--money and politics, etc.) but I just don't believe the above scenario is how it really happened.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

On that note, I would like for people to think about what they would if they were minding their own business and someone seemed to be following them. Then that person sits in the car and watches you OR comes up to you and asks you where you're going. Yeah...I'm a smartass already and I can tell you that if I felt I couldn't get away, even if I called 911, I may find a way to cuss the person out and may feel as though I was about to fight for my life. Again, even if Martin punched Zimmerman first, I believe Martin could have felt that he was defending his life. I refuse to believe that Zimmerman was innocently surveying the area and JUST SO HAPPENED to have a gun.

Martin: *turns around and walks up to Zimmerman* Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I'm neighborhood watch...where are you walking to?
Martin: Kick rocks, dude, why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I mean you no harm...blessings to you....
Martin: *punch*
Zimmerman: *getting his head banged on the street...somehow they end up in the grass (hmmmm....)* Oh shit, I FORGOT I HAD THIS GUN!!!!! I can't fight...so...BANG BANG BITCH!

Yeah...the prosecutors sucked (as do many attorneys hired by the state) but I just don't believe that is how it happened.

+1

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People precipitate their own victimization all of the time. Martin precipitated his own victimization.

How did Trayvon Martin precipitate his own victimization?

[DrPhil]

Re: Tasers

Tasers have their own issues and there is increased research on the longterm impact of tasing. We had a GC discussion about that last year. Sure, it is better than shooting and especially shooting to kill. Sure, it is a good self-defense method if self-defense (or law enforcement and military compliance) is truly the issue.

***********************

Originally Posted by TonyB06

How did Trayvon Martin precipitate his own victimization?

Hello, TonyB06

The following is based on how dark and dreary it is where I live on a rainy February 26th 7:00pm evening--even with street lights. Someone let me know whether Sanford, Florida has more daylight during that time. Daylight savings 2012 was March 11.

The post that you quoted explains that victim precipitation is not victim blame so there is no need to defend Trayvon Martin or his hoodie (I see white men walking and jogging in dark clothing or hoodies all of the time. People walk around in the evening all of the time, as well.). Victim precipitation is just one component of the study of offending and victimization patterns. Men tend not to be told about victim precipitation (despite having a higher rate of victimization for all crimes except rape and sexual assault. The victimization of men is even greater approximately 15-40 age range.). However, women are the ones who tend to be told not to walk around in the evening, not to park cars in empty parking lots, not to walk with their eyes down rather than looking at their surroundings, etc.

Many parents of Black and Hispanic young men tell their sons to be careful for fear of racial-gender profiling. Most of these parents do not also tell these young Black and Hispanic men about victim precipitation. Some of us believe Trayvon Martin was the victim and not the perpetrator, just as some people believe Zimmerman was the victim and not the perpetrator. Race and gender were among the factors in their interaction but there were also environmental factors. I doubt that interaction would have gone down like that if it was not dark and rainy outside--even if Martin wore his hoodie and seemed to fit the burglarer profile. Let's say it was 2:00pm instead of 7:06pm. It probably would've been perceived differently by both Martin and Zimmerman and there probably would have been a different outcome.

Victim precipitation is also not to be confused with excessive fear of crime and paranoia. All things in moderation. This is about being observant and smart so that if you walk around late at night, for example, you do things to buffer the fact that it is late at night (i.e., looking people in the eye, not being alone, keeping a phone, pepper spray, car keys in your hand, etc.), thus reducing the risk of victimization. You are still precipitating (the potential for) victimization but you are hopefully reducing the likelihood of victimization. Women around the world tend to be told this all of the time but men around the world tend not to be told this. I have devoted my (non-Greekchat) time to telling this to men, especially Black and Hispanic men in the 15-40 age range. Reduce the machismo, billy badass routine, masculinity, and "quien es mas macho" and acknowledge risks for potential victimization.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Hello, TonyB06

The following is based on how dark and dreary it is where I live on a rainy February 26th 7:00pm evening--even with street lights. Someone let me know whether Sanford, Florida has more daylight during that time. Daylight savings 2012 was March 11.

The post that you quoted explains that victim precipitation is not victim blame so there is no need to defend Trayvon Martin or his hoodie (I see white men walking and jogging in dark clothing or hoodies all of the time. People walk around in the evening all of the time, as well.). Victim precipitation is just one component of the study of offending and victimization patterns. Men tend not to be told about victim precipitation (despite having a higher rate of victimization for all crimes except rape and sexual assault. The victimization of men is even greater approximately 15-40 age range.). However, women are the ones who tend to be told not to walk around in the evening, not to park cars in empty parking lots, not to walk with their eyes down rather than looking at their surroundings, etc.

Many parents of Black and Hispanic young men tell their sons to be careful for fear of racial-gender profiling. Most of these parents do not also tell these young Black and Hispanic men about victim precipitation. Some of us believe Trayvon Martin was the victim and not the perpetrator, just as some people believe Zimmerman was the victim and not the perpetrator. Race and gender were among the factors in their interaction but there were also environmental factors. I doubt that interaction would have gone down like that if it was not dark and rainy outside--even if Martin wore his hoodie and seemed to fit the burglarer profile. Let's say it was 2:00pm instead of 7:06pm. It probably would've been perceived differently by both Martin and Zimmerman and there probably would have been a different outcome.

Victim precipitation is also not to be confused with excessive fear of crime and paranoia. All things in moderation. This is about being observant and smart so that if you walk around late at night, for example, you do things to buffer the fact that it is late at night (i.e., looking people in the eye, not being alone, keeping a phone, pepper spray, car keys in your hand, etc.), thus reducing the risk of victimization. You are still precipitating (the potential for) victimization but you are hopefully reducing the likelihood of victimization. Women around the world tend to be told this all of the time but men around the world tend not to be told this. I have devoted my (non-Greekchat) time to telling this to men, especially Black and Hispanic men in the 15-40 age range. Reduce the machismo, billy badass routine, masculinity, and "quien es mas macho" and acknowledge risks for potential victimization.

Hi, DrPhil,
I’m probably missing (or just flat out rejecting) the differentiation between victim precipitation and blaming.

As an AfAm man 30+ years older than Trayvon Martin, and I understand carefulness and watchfullness. However, at 17, I’m pretty sure TM was just balling out, full of vitality and expectation. Not likely thinking a run to the store at halftime of a basketball game might cost him his life. And certainly, that lack of watchfulness shouldn’t have done so. Precipitation sounds a little too close to "blaming" to me.

I’d have expected George Zimmerman to have shown the higher thinking. He set all this in motion.

And then came Saturday night. The public got “not guilty.” GZ got his gun back and rest of us got try and make sense of this judicial atrocity.

[PhoenixAzul]

EDIT: Because one shouldn't political post while recovering from hypoglycemia. Sorry, need to fully bake the idea.

[DrPhil]

Cough cough...it is all 33girl's fault.

Yes, there are women serial killers. Black serial killers, Hispanic serial killers (Richard Ramirez finally died)...but even when controlling for these exceptions and the amount of cold cases around the world, the profile remains white men of a certain age. Serial killing isn't the only crime for which white men fit the profile.

I now see these white men jogging around my neighborhood in the dark and want to ask them to explain their whereabouts. Those of us who live in communities know that we find more discreet and respectful ways to know who comes in and out of our neighborhoods. We're watching you...all of you...not just "those Black people."


****
ETA: I respect the legal system, even if I disagree with the outcome, and this is one of the reasons why we have appeals and civil suits.

But...yaaaaaaaaaaaay!!! Zimmerman may get his gun back if he requests it.

[moe.ron]

Federal Trial Against Zimmerman Won’t End Well

When in 1992 a California jury acquitted the four officers who beat Rodney King, the result was a race riot of a kind not seen since the late 1960s -- followed by a federal civil-rights prosecution that convicted two of the officers. The acquittal of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin hasn’t produced rioting, but it has spawned a growing demand, led by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, for a federal trial to re-charge Zimmerman with violating Martin’s civil rights.

The laws have changed since 1992 to make bringing such a prosecution easier than it would once have been. Yet the likelihood of getting a conviction would be extremely small -- and instead of placating people who feel aggrieved by the first trial, another failed prosecution might make race relations in America worse, not better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-end-well.html

I honestly think Tayvon's family should sue George Zimmerman. George has already indicated he want to sue NBC for defamation of character. I think Tayvon should sue triple the amount Zimmerman is suing NBC for. Hit em where it hurt the most, his pocket.

[Kevin]

Considering the statutes and the evidence, criminal charges were ridiculous. One of the state's own witnesses, Jonathan Good testified that it appeared the black combatant was on top and winning the confrontation.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peop...immerman-case/

I never recalled seeing any media coverage about that bit of testimony. Strange. They then called a voice recognition expert who testified that it couldn't be done digitally, then the parents and relatives of both Zimmerman and Martin testified that the screams were from their own relatives. The state should never miss an opportunity to call a grieving mother as a fact witness. That was a pretty low blow.

Anyhow, had this not been a high profile case with the world watching and the potentiality of riots, it should have been a directed verdict (the judge should have reached a finding that the state hadn't met its burden) at the halfway point of the trial.

The last witness the defense put up was very damaging to the state's case and really tarnished the credibility of the state's experts. Dr. Vincent J.M. Di Maio is a nationally recognized forensics expert.

http://www.local10.com/news/george-z...z/-/index.html

He testified how the injuries were consistent with what Zimmerman had been saying all along. Does all of that prove Zimmerman innocent? Nope. But it does give rise to lots and lots of reasonable doubt.

The law is what it is. People shouldn't be angry at Zimmerman, they should be upset with the NRA and its supporters. This case is a prime example of prosecutorial misconduct. Maybe the public spanking will slow Florida's prosecutors down in prosecuting these sorts of things just because the news stations are making a big deal out of it. The Obama administration could have used this as an opportunity to lead this country away from some of its ridiculous gun laws. Instead, we're hand wringing over racial stuff? In the trial, there was never a bit of evidence to suggest race had anything to do with anything that night, but that's all some folks want to see.

For many years, most jurisdictions recognized a duty to retreat before the use of deadly force would be justified. Maybe instead of the current conversation, let's talk some about that. At least that can be fixed by just passing a statute.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Considering the statutes and the evidence, criminal charges were ridiculous. One of the state's own witnesses, Jonathan Good testified that it appeared the black combatant was on top and winning the confrontation.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peop...immerman-case/

I never recalled seeing any media coverage about that bit of testimony. Strange. They then called a voice recognition expert who testified that it couldn't be done digitally, then the parents and relatives of both Zimmerman and Martin testified that the screams were from their own relatives. The state should never miss an opportunity to call a grieving mother as a fact witness. That was a pretty low blow.

Anyhow, had this not been a high profile case with the world watching and the potentiality of riots, it should have been a directed verdict (the judge should have reached a finding that the state hadn't met its burden) at the halfway point of the trial.

The last witness the defense put up was very damaging to the state's case and really tarnished the credibility of the state's experts. Dr. Vincent J.M. Di Maio is a nationally recognized forensics expert.

http://www.local10.com/news/george-z...z/-/index.html

He testified how the injuries were consistent with what Zimmerman had been saying all along. Does all of that prove Zimmerman innocent? Nope. But it does give rise to lots and lots of reasonable doubt.

The law is what it is. People shouldn't be angry at Zimmerman, they should be upset with the NRA and its supporters. This case is a prime example of prosecutorial misconduct. Maybe the public spanking will slow Florida's prosecutors down in prosecuting these sorts of things just because the news stations are making a big deal out of it. The Obama administration could have used this as an opportunity to lead this country away from some of its ridiculous gun laws. Instead, we're hand wringing over racial stuff? In the trial, there was never a bit of evidence to suggest race had anything to do with anything that night, but that's all some folks want to see.

For many years, most jurisdictions recognized a duty to retreat before the use of deadly force would be justified. Maybe instead of the current conversation, let's talk some about that. At least that can be fixed by just passing a statute.

I agree that they should change this statute, but I don't agree that race was irrelevant that day. I don't think this has anything to do with Obama. If he had tried to jump in and made a big deal about changing gun laws, gun rights people would have gone bonkers. You can't do that after EVERY gun tragedy, and I don't see him wasting political clout to change the law in one state. This is a LOCAL issue. They want to focus on the civil rights aspect which is there. Hopefully the climate will change in Talahassee in a few years for lawmakers to get rid of a bad law. That shouldn't stop a family from seeking justice denied by that law.

[Munchkin03]

I blame Florida for all of this. First for that dumb law, and second for having a shitty prosecutor. The burden of proof was on the state and they dropped the ball.