EPresence2
Member
This blog post was inspired by my participation in a thread on subsequent domestic violence allegations against George Zimmerman. The case naturally came up again and the sides started reasserting themselves. The majority view seemed exasperated and incensed that "pro-Zimmerman" perspectives were raising their ugly head again. There were claims that a previous thread ("Dying for Skittles") had made a decisive conclusion that Zimmerman got away with stalking and killing a kid in Florida (manslaughter) because the prosecution botched the case; The State failed to put enough emphasis on a history of violence by the defendant, while the defense succeeded at blaming the victim. As such, the case is yet another example of how the justice system mistreats minorities and laws are abused by gun-wielding citizens. However, the essential question of the case is really whether Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, thus escalating the situation to physical violence - everyone agrees Zimmerman should NOT have followed Martin.
The vocal majority has declared that Zimmerman's violent history cannot compare to the known history of Martin - thus negating any plausible scenarios that blame the victim in any way. All the fault must rest with Zimmerman for following and confronting an innocent teenager who, fearing for his life, naturally defended himself from a stalker - the vilified "Stand Your Ground" rule at it's finest. The majority also feels it is okay to ridicule anyone generating "what if" scenarios because the most likely possibility was total aggression from Zimmerman. GZ must have attempted to detain the teenaged suspect because he told the 911 operator that, "these assholes always get away." Clearly his intention was to prevent the suspect from getting away and prevention = detainment. Anyone saying otherwise is a pro-Zimmerman fanboy. :skeptical:
Meanwhile, the "fanboys" are also looking beyond the histories and including the facts of the case and plausible scenarios. How dare they focus on more than one aspect of trial by public opinion! The account of Zimmerman versus the facts reveals some questionable accuracy (lies?), yet a play-by-play analysis of the map and call log reveals some questionable logic on the part of the majority opinion. Zimmerman drove into the gated community and crosses Martin's path, who allegedly glares and then runs away around 7:12 pm. Martin could have walked approximately 2,400 feet in the 4 minutes that transpired between 7:12 pm and 7:16 pm when his phone was dropped to engage Zimmerman. That is enough time to walk back and forth to his father's place nearly three times (measured on Google Earth).
On the call with Rachel Jeantel that ended at 7:16 pm, the (scared for his life) Martin was talking about basketball followed by expressed surprise that, "the nigga is still following me." Obviously afraid that the guy could be a stalker looking for a 6'2" black teenager to openly molest, Martin stood his ground to prevent the stalker from reaching his home to continue the depredation. Demonize much? Martin: "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?" Phone drops in wet grass and Rachel hears "Get off! Get off!" Obviously this means that citizen Zimmerman must have grabbed Martin for questioning while the police were on their way, despite only a suspicion of drug possession and intention to burglarize. Obviously, there wasn't enough time (>4 minutes) to think about a course of action other than physical detainment to ensure the suspect didn't get away. :skeptical:
During the second call with Jeantel, Martin says he's near his Daddy's house, which is about 350 ft beyond the location of the physical altercation. The livid majority is claiming it's more likely that Martin didn't backtrack at all and 350 ft could be "near his Daddy's house." Is it more likely to conclude that Martin was walking at a snails pace after initially running out of sight? It seems far more likely that Martin backtracked after getting near his Daddy's house for any number of reasons - (1) to see if "the nigga" was still following him, (2) just wandering around talking and not expecting to see him again, (3) actively looking to confront the guy following him, or some combination of reasons. One thing is for certain: we don't know. Likewise, Zimmerman could have been thinking about different ways to prevent a suspect from getting away while police were on the way. Of course, he wouldn't be thinking at all about the potential for civil/legal action if he was wrong - like previous incidents of him following suspects to their home in the neighborhood. :skeptical:
But Trayvon could not have been violent as we all know Zimmerman was. After all, Zimmerman (@ age 21) shoved an undercover cop at a bar which clearly suggests a certainty he would do something similarly violent in a different situation. He had plenty of time to think about whether to shove the undercover cop/bouncer and did it anyway. Seriously? Martin was certainly willing and able to fight someone he felt was doing him wrong, as evidenced by a record of his text messages. Does that mean he started the fight with an unfair profiler and creepy ass cracker? How can you honestly claim which is more likely and ridicule other opinions or lack thereof? Perhaps the respective conclusions on the case have calcified to the point they will never change - the constant barrage of strawmen and snarky commentary I received is a testament to that apparent calcification.
I hope that nothing like this incident happens again, but I also hope that "we the people" will reserve a little judgment while the sides are respectfully playing it out. We are failing if the sides calcify before a thorough analysis is presented. And just because someone takes a position doesn't mean they are confined to it - determining shades of justice FOR ALL demands that flexibility.
The vocal majority has declared that Zimmerman's violent history cannot compare to the known history of Martin - thus negating any plausible scenarios that blame the victim in any way. All the fault must rest with Zimmerman for following and confronting an innocent teenager who, fearing for his life, naturally defended himself from a stalker - the vilified "Stand Your Ground" rule at it's finest. The majority also feels it is okay to ridicule anyone generating "what if" scenarios because the most likely possibility was total aggression from Zimmerman. GZ must have attempted to detain the teenaged suspect because he told the 911 operator that, "these assholes always get away." Clearly his intention was to prevent the suspect from getting away and prevention = detainment. Anyone saying otherwise is a pro-Zimmerman fanboy. :skeptical:
Meanwhile, the "fanboys" are also looking beyond the histories and including the facts of the case and plausible scenarios. How dare they focus on more than one aspect of trial by public opinion! The account of Zimmerman versus the facts reveals some questionable accuracy (lies?), yet a play-by-play analysis of the map and call log reveals some questionable logic on the part of the majority opinion. Zimmerman drove into the gated community and crosses Martin's path, who allegedly glares and then runs away around 7:12 pm. Martin could have walked approximately 2,400 feet in the 4 minutes that transpired between 7:12 pm and 7:16 pm when his phone was dropped to engage Zimmerman. That is enough time to walk back and forth to his father's place nearly three times (measured on Google Earth).
On the call with Rachel Jeantel that ended at 7:16 pm, the (scared for his life) Martin was talking about basketball followed by expressed surprise that, "the nigga is still following me." Obviously afraid that the guy could be a stalker looking for a 6'2" black teenager to openly molest, Martin stood his ground to prevent the stalker from reaching his home to continue the depredation. Demonize much? Martin: "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman: "What are you doing here?" Phone drops in wet grass and Rachel hears "Get off! Get off!" Obviously this means that citizen Zimmerman must have grabbed Martin for questioning while the police were on their way, despite only a suspicion of drug possession and intention to burglarize. Obviously, there wasn't enough time (>4 minutes) to think about a course of action other than physical detainment to ensure the suspect didn't get away. :skeptical:
During the second call with Jeantel, Martin says he's near his Daddy's house, which is about 350 ft beyond the location of the physical altercation. The livid majority is claiming it's more likely that Martin didn't backtrack at all and 350 ft could be "near his Daddy's house." Is it more likely to conclude that Martin was walking at a snails pace after initially running out of sight? It seems far more likely that Martin backtracked after getting near his Daddy's house for any number of reasons - (1) to see if "the nigga" was still following him, (2) just wandering around talking and not expecting to see him again, (3) actively looking to confront the guy following him, or some combination of reasons. One thing is for certain: we don't know. Likewise, Zimmerman could have been thinking about different ways to prevent a suspect from getting away while police were on the way. Of course, he wouldn't be thinking at all about the potential for civil/legal action if he was wrong - like previous incidents of him following suspects to their home in the neighborhood. :skeptical:
But Trayvon could not have been violent as we all know Zimmerman was. After all, Zimmerman (@ age 21) shoved an undercover cop at a bar which clearly suggests a certainty he would do something similarly violent in a different situation. He had plenty of time to think about whether to shove the undercover cop/bouncer and did it anyway. Seriously? Martin was certainly willing and able to fight someone he felt was doing him wrong, as evidenced by a record of his text messages. Does that mean he started the fight with an unfair profiler and creepy ass cracker? How can you honestly claim which is more likely and ridicule other opinions or lack thereof? Perhaps the respective conclusions on the case have calcified to the point they will never change - the constant barrage of strawmen and snarky commentary I received is a testament to that apparent calcification.
I hope that nothing like this incident happens again, but I also hope that "we the people" will reserve a little judgment while the sides are respectfully playing it out. We are failing if the sides calcify before a thorough analysis is presented. And just because someone takes a position doesn't mean they are confined to it - determining shades of justice FOR ALL demands that flexibility.