The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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.

For some reason, people want to forget this, and focus on the scuffle between the two.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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

It is all a process of studying human behavior and environments. We would not know all we know about offending and victimization if we did not know how certain victims and certain offenders end up "at the 'wrong'/'right' place at the 'wrong'/'right' time."

Everything I typed about victim precipitation must be read within the context of everything else I typed in this thread. If you have read some of my posts, you will know that I am not blaming Martin and do not believe he was in the wrong if he confronted Zimmerman. My personal opinion on that aside, that does not negate the fact that this probably would not have occurred if the context were different for both Zimmerman and Martin.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

GZ got his gun back and rest of us got try and make sense of this judicial atrocity.

I'm kind of tired of hearing that this was a "judicial atrocity" or that sort of nonsense. The case should never have been filed. The state's evidence and witnesses pointed more towards the self-defense theory than anything else and there was simply no way for the state to meet its evidentiary burden.

There's no evidence Martin was profiled due to his race. What I see, obviously from a privileged background, is a lot of folks are projecting their own experiences, e.g., discrimination, DWBs and such onto a situation, making a lot of assumptions and arriving at conclusions requiring a certain level of outrage which is really not justified if you're limiting your outrage to the facts of this case or Mr. Zimmerman specifically. If your outrage is more about racial inequality, discrimination, i.e., big picture stuff, I can respect that.

The media made this about race, the President even weighed in. No one can prove Zimmerman broke the law. I doubt it could even be proved 51% at a civil trial. I was disappointed that the judge didn't dismiss the case after the prosecution closed their case because they failed to meet their burden. That was an act of judicial cowardice, but somewhat expected considering the politics.

It's not a judicial atrocity. The system worked. If you don't like the result, be mad at the facts, not at the defendant. The jury did its part, gave a really good look at the evidence and voted unanimously to acquit in the end.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm kind of tired of hearing that this was a "judicial atrocity" or that sort of nonsense. The case should never have been filed. The state's evidence and witnesses pointed more towards the self-defense theory than anything else and there was simply no way for the state to meet its evidentiary burden.

There's no evidence Martin was profiled due to his race. What I see, obviously from a privileged background, is a lot of folks are projecting their own experiences, e.g., discrimination, DWBs and such onto a situation, making a lot of assumptions and arriving at conclusions requiring a certain level of outrage which is really not justified if you're limiting your outrage to the facts of this case or Mr. Zimmerman specifically. If your outrage is more about racial inequality, discrimination, i.e., big picture stuff, I can respect that.

The media made this about race, the President even weighed in. No one can prove Zimmerman broke the law. I doubt it could even be proved 51% at a civil trial. I was disappointed that the judge didn't dismiss the case after the prosecution closed their case because they failed to meet their burden. That was an act of judicial cowardice, but somewhat expected considering the politics.

It's not a judicial atrocity. The system worked. If you don't like the result, be mad at the facts, not at the defendant. The jury did its part, gave a really good look at the evidence and voted unanimously to acquit in the end.

It is a judicial atrocity.

What should never have happened was it taking 44 days of public pressure being brought to bear to affect an arrest, despite the belief of officers on scene that GZ should have immediately been incarcerated and had toxicology screens performed that night.

(Public pressure not brought to bear until after the police chief told Tracy Martin he was not going to make an arrest.)

Surely you have some idea the burden a delay of that magnitude would have on an effective investigation? The collection of additional evidence? Witness-canvassing that might have actually shed more light on what really happened? Instead, we have the defendant’s self-serving version of events. I agree with you the prosecution was horrible in bringing this case, but at least acknowledge the operational hurdle they had to overcome before their own ineptness took over.

The fact that GZ’s previous 18 neighborhood watch calls to Sanford PD, all 18 referenced “suspicious” looking black men; is suggestive of at least the possibility of a pattern of racial profiling. “F—king punks.” “These a—holes, they always get away.”

Or the state’s final (or penultimate)? witness, the white woman whose home had been vandalized. Why she was even there I’ll never know. Even more baffling, why the prosecution sat mute. Why didn’t they stand and ask “Had Trayvon Martin had burglarized your home, lady?” “Had you ever met Trayvon Martin, lady?”

So don’t tell me the media made this about race. Mark O’Mara made this about race. Mark O’Mara showed the jury the picture of a shirtless, marijuana-puffing (read: menacing?) Trayvon Martin. Did GZ see a shirtless Trayvon Martin that night? O’Mara played race into this better than Heat/Spurs.

Facts of the case?

Unarmed teenager, minding his own business, trying to get back home to watch the game. The kid is followed, confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun (previously told to keep his wanna be azz in the car). Kids winds up dead. Only eye-witnesses is the killer whose testimony, in the face of a myriad of previous proven inconsistencies (i.e. “he jumped out at me from the bushes,” only to have it turn out there were no bushes) cannot be reliably believed.

Beyond that, you don’t know any more than I do what happened. I don’t believe TM ambushed GZ; he was trying to get back home to the 2nd half of a basketball game—it makes no sense. I don’t know when GZ drew his gun, but common sense tells me if one is drawn on you and you see it, and don’t have one, you back up.

As for your earlier references to people “projecting” their own “experiences” onto this situation, can you prove that? And since you’re identifying biases, start with yours.

It is a judicial atrocity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

It is a judicial atrocity.

What should never have happened was it taking 44 days of public pressure being brought to bear to affect an arrest, despite the belief of officers on scene that GZ should have immediately been incarcerated and had toxicology screens performed that night.

(Public pressure not brought to bear until after the police chief told Tracy Martin he was not going to make an arrest.)

The officers did perform interviews with Zimmerman and released him because everything fit the claim of self defense within the Florida statutes. The choice not to go any further by the officers was pretty well exonerated by the jury verdict. In fact, one of the officers, one of the state's own witnesses testified he believed Zimmerman's story.

Surely you have some idea the burden a delay of that magnitude would have on an effective investigation? The collection of additional evidence? Witness-canvassing that might have actually shed more light on what really happened? Instead, we have the defendant’s self-serving version of events. I agree with you the prosecution was horrible in bringing this case, but at least acknowledge the operational hurdle they had to overcome before their own ineptness took over.

They still got a lot of evidence, an eye-witness the media really hasn't talked about (doesn't really fit the outrage agenda) and still not enough to get over the evidentiary burden. A lot of legal professionals were waiting for some bombshell evidence to come out and justify the prosecution of this case. What we got was a prosecution which apparently thought if they picked an all female jury and put the mom on the stand as a fact witness who didn't come off as credible (5/6 jurors thought the cries for help came from Zimmerman), the jury would render an emotional verdict. You can't really blame the prosecution's performance. Clarence Darrow couldn't have convicted based on the evidence the state had.

The fact that GZ’s previous 18 neighborhood watch calls to Sanford PD, all 18 referenced “suspicious” looking black men; is suggestive of at least the possibility of a pattern of racial profiling. “F—king punks.” “These a—holes, they always get away.”

I read all of those calls. You can too.

http://www.motherjones.com/documents...1-call-history

Those calls are all from reporting a pool party that got out of hand to complaining about kids running out in front of cars for fun. You're confusing the facts. There was one call, the one about Martin and there had been some crime in the area and yes, teenagers out at night, speaking from the experience of being a teenager, are worthy of the attention of a neighborhood watchman.

Or the state’s final (or penultimate)? witness, the white woman whose home had been vandalized. Why she was even there I’ll never know. Even more baffling, why the prosecution sat mute. Why didn’t they stand and ask “Had Trayvon Martin had burglarized your home, lady?” “Had you ever met Trayvon Martin, lady?”

So don’t tell me the media made this about race. Mark O’Mara made this about race. Mark O’Mara showed the jury the picture of a shirtless, marijuana-puffing (read: menacing?) Trayvon Martin. Did GZ see a shirtless Trayvon Martin that night? O’Mara played race into this better than Heat/Spurs.

The media very much made this about race. That's not even remotely debatable. You don't see white folks causing mayhem in LA right now because of their supposed outrage at this verdict.

Facts of the case?

Unarmed teenager, minding his own business, trying to get back home to watch the game. The kid is followed, confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun (previously told to keep his wanna be azz in the car). Kids winds up dead.

There is nothing illegal about what happened. Be mad at stand your ground laws. Be mad at the evidence not sorting out the way you wanted it to. What Zimmerman did, calling for police assistance and following someone he didn't recognize as being from the neighborhood was not illegal. In fact, if you read the 911 call logs, that wasn't the first time he reported someone for being in the gated community because he didn't recognize them.

Only eye-witnesses is the killer whose testimony, in the face of a myriad of previous proven inconsistencies (i.e. “he jumped out at me from the bushes,” only to have it turn out there were no bushes) cannot be reliably believed.

Unbelievable. Have you even reviewed what the witnesses said? One of the state's witnesses reported seeing two men wrestling and a black guy on top of the lighter guy and something about some MMA.

Beyond that, you don’t know any more than I do what happened.

I seem to know a lot more about what was testified to...

I don’t believe TM ambushed GZ; he was trying to get back home to the 2nd half of a basketball game—it makes no sense. I don’t know when GZ drew his gun, but common sense tells me if one is drawn on you and you see it, and don’t have one, you back up.

Again, you haven't heard any of the evidence which doesn't support your conclusions, apparently. The final defense witness was a world-renowned gunshot forensics expert. He testified that the residue was consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired. It showed that the residue from the blast was on the clothing, that the gun was touching the clothing when fired, but it was 2-4" away from the skin. This would mean that the clothing was hanging from the skin... gravity pulling down generally, this would indicate Martin was on top of Zimmerman and looking at all of the other evidence, that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help that he was getting his head bashed against concrete and sustaining other wounds and that he shot Martin to save himself from death or great bodily harm.

My suggestion is supported by the evidence and the testimony. Maybe it's not what happened, but what you're suggesting definitely did not happen.

As for your earlier references to people “projecting” their own “experiences” onto this situation, can you prove that? And since you’re identifying biases, start with yours.

I told you I come from a privileged background. I'm admitting to that. I'd say that based on the general level of animus you're showing, that makes me a lot more objective about this case than you apparently are.

It is a judicial atrocity.

The judge erred on the side of the prosecution ridiculously. Allowing manslaughter to be filed so late in the game could have dramatically affected the defense strategy. It was a low blow. And even the discussion of those child abuse charges was ridiculous. The jury went over the evidence very painstakingly and voted unanimously to acquit. Several of them wanted to convict him of something, but in Florida, the law is what it is. Following the law is hardly a judicial atrocity.