DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The pictures of a younger Martin should matter to everyone because it is a clear case of intentional misrpresentation. It is intended to give the impression that Zimmerman approached a small child who looked like the one in the picture. If he was so big, and scary, and "suspicious", why didnt Zimmerman leave it to the professionals?? More reason to stay in your car, unless you are looking to shoot someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Not if you started the fight and put yourself in that position in the first place. But I understand where you are disagreeing, and I'll say fair enough, but I disagree as well. Not to be argumentative, but what is it you disagree with? Are you just assuming that Zimmerman started the fight (physically), or are you saying that by arguably minding someone else's business you give them the legal right to pummel you at their own discretion regardless of whether you presented any threat to their physical being? Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand the mindset here. If he was so big, and scary, and "suspicious", why didnt Zimmerman leave it to the professionals?? More reason to stay in your car, unless you are looking to shoot someone. That's not the point. The point is a dishonest portrayal on the part of the media, not whether 17 year old Trayvon was "so big, and scary, and 'suspicious'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I wast responding to specifically your post at all, bbb. Or any others for that matter. Just commenting on the overall mucking-up of this story. The pictures of a younger Martin, etc shouldnt matter to either side. This was a citizen, regardless of age, that ended up dead because another citizen decided to confront him. I dont care about age, or race, or whatever. Just trying to put it in the perspective of "What if this was you walking home?". I think that the Martin family is 100% correct in their wanting justice to be done. I want justice to be done, too. I just don't want it to be done via social media and the storm that has been swept up - and that includes the cherubic pictures of a mucn young Trayvon. That is the part that is my issue. I think almost everybody would agree that they want a proper investigation to be done. At least I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Not to be argumentative, but what is it you disagree with? Are you just assuming that Zimmerman started the fight (physically), or are you saying that by arguably minding someone else's business you give them the legal right to pummel you at their own discretion regardless of whether you presented any threat to their physical being? Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand the mindset here. If you start a confrontation, and then start losing, you as the aggressor dont get to escalate to killing them. Unfortunately, in this ultra-paranoid society, Zimmerman lurking Martin with his car can easily be misconstrued by Martin as Zimmerman setting up an attack. If some dude was following me through my neighborhood, I'd be worried about some sort of assault. Call the police instead of confronting. There is (or should be) a protocol for Zimmerman to follow. It should not include directly confronting anyone you think is suspicious or dangerous. If you do, imo, you are hoping it escalates. The only reason for Zimmerman to get out and confront Martin is if he is looking for a fight. Otherwise, listen to 911 and stay in your car until police arrive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that the Martin family is 100% correct in their wanting justice to be done. I want justice to be done, too. I just don't want it to be done via social media and the storm that has been swept up - and that includes the cherubic pictures of a mucn young Trayvon. That is the part that is my issue. I think almost everybody would agree that they want a proper investigation to be done. At least I do. The dishonest media, etc should definitely be discussed and addressed. Agreed. However, it should be a completely separate discussion, away from any discussion about the trial and what happened. It sucks that it's being sued to sway people to Martin's side, pre-maturely. But it definitely shouldnt sway you to blaming the victim. No matter what happened, Martin is dead after just trying to walk home. There would have to be a very specific set of occurrences in order to make that "ok". Edited March 25, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The dishonest media, etc should definitely be discussed and addressed. Agreed. However, it should be a completely separate discussion, away from any discussion about the trial and what happened. It sucks that it's being sued to sway people to Martin's side, pre-maturely. But it definitely shouldnt sway you to blaming the victim. No matter what happened, Martin is dead after just trying to walk home. There would have to be a very specific set of occurrences in order to make that "ok". The irony of that statement being that the only reason you "know" Martin was "just walking home" is because that's what you've heard in the media. Not taking sides at all...just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Apparently, there is an eyewitness who says that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The irony of that statement being that the only reason you "know" Martin was "just walking home" is because that's what you've heard in the media. Not taking sides at all...just pointing out the fallacy in your reasoning. It's hardly a perfect argument, I'll be the first to admit. I'm also open to revisiting as facts come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 On the flip side, if someone is on top of you pumping your face with his fist while you're screaming for help, you actually do have a right to reach into your holster, pull out your gun, point it at your attacker, and pull the !@#$ing trigger until it goes "click". Regardless of how the situation started? Say Zimmerman walked up behind Martin and punched him in the head and then Martin turned around and started to fight back? Are you allowed to kill someone if they are beating you in a fight you started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Regardless of how the situation started? Say Zimmerman walked up behind Martin and punched him in the head and then Martin turned around and started to fight back? Are you allowed to kill someone if they are beating you in a fight you started? If he walked up and punched they guy he obviously can't claim self-defense. But there's a big difference between asking someone if they live in the area and/or what they're up to, and punching them in the !@#$ing head. If there were any evidence whatsoever that your hypo is an illustration of how this went down there's little doubt he would have been charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 If he walked up and punched they guy he obviously can't claim self-defense. But there's a big difference between asking someone if they live in the area and/or what they're up to, and punching them in the !@#$ing head. If there were any evidence whatsoever that your hypo is an illustration of how this went down there's little doubt he would have been charged. It gets to be an even greyer area in this case, when you consider: Can the way Zimmerman followed Martin be considered menacing? Did Zimmerman have anything on his car identifying it as neighborhood watch? Did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch? Why did Zimmerman get out of his car? How did he approach Martin? Depending on the answers, Zimmerman could easily be thought of as an attacker from Martin's point of view. Especially if Zimmerman was over-zealous in the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It gets to be an even greyer area in this case, when you consider: Can the way Zimmerman followed Martin be considered menacing? Did Zimmerman have anything on his car identifying it as neighborhood watch? Did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch? Why did Zimmerman get out of his car? How did he approach Martin? Depending on the answers, Zimmerman could easily be thought of as an attacker from Martin's point of view. Especially if Zimmerman was over-zealous in the situation. And depending on the answers Zimmerman may have identified himself as neighborhood watch, called out to Martin from a distance, approached him slowly from the front, politely asked him if he lived there and explained that he was only asking because of a recent spate of crime in the area. For all we know, Zimmerman was all 'excuse me sir' and Martin just hauled off an cold cocked him without warning or any provocation beyond being annoyed at the intrusion. Thus, we get back to the point that we don't really know what happened and so it bears asking why in that event the media and our elected officials would go out of their way to portray a victim as something he's not (12 years old), and condemn an innocent man as a murderer. I'm sorry for the kid and his family, but the complete abdication of responsibility by our press and elected officials is a much bigger crime than anything to do with this particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) And depending on the answers Zimmerman may have identified himself as neighborhood watch, called out to Martin from a distance, approached him slowly from the front, politely asked him if he lived there and explained that he was only asking because of a recent spate of crime in the area. For all we know, Zimmerman was all 'excuse me sir' and Martin just hauled off an cold cocked him without warning or any provocation beyond being annoyed at the intrusion. Thus, we get back to the point that we don't really know what happened and so it bears asking why in that event the media and our elected officials would go out of their way to portray a victim as something he's not (12 years old), and condemn an innocent man as a murderer. I'm sorry for the kid and his family, but the complete abdication of responsibility by our press and elected officials is a much bigger crime than anything to do with this particular case. We obviously don't know the truth, but the 911 call of Zimmerman saying “They always get away" and then ignoring the operator's instruction to stop following him does not sound like he was just a calm guy asking a question. Edited March 25, 2012 by ofiba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Is it possible that neither side handled the situation well, or can it only be one side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) It's hardly a perfect argument, I'll be the first to admit. I'm also open to revisiting as facts come out. I think everyone's point is this: instead of assuming and speculating FIRST ( with the understanding that you're open to revisiting the facts later), how about everyone just wait for the facts to come out first BEFORE jumping to over-dramatic conclusions? Just a thought... Edited March 25, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 For anybody interested in the timeline of this turning from local story to national media frenzy, the NY Times published this article today: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/media/for-martins-case-a-long-route-to-national-attention.html Is it possible that neither side handled the situation well, or can it only be one side? I would be on this, and also go with LABillzFan's suggestion. I'm not sure if I've seen such a lynch mob mentality move so fast - the world is just speeding up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Is it possible that neither side handled the situation well, or can it only be one side? Looks like Adam is going with a three-wood off the tee. Slight swirling breeze moving left to right, then right to left. His takeaway is clean. And it looks like a nice drive. Wait, it's veering to the left a little. Now it's veering to the right. Wait, wait, wait. And there it is...another well-placed ball landing right in the middle of fairway. (Relax, Adam. I'm just busting chops.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Looks like Adam is going with a three-wood off the tee. Slight swirling breeze moving left to right, then right to left. His takeaway is clean. And it looks like a nice drive. Wait, it's veering to the left a little. Now it's veering to the right. Wait, wait, wait. And there it is...another well-placed ball landing right in the middle of fairway. (Relax, Adam. I'm just busting chops.) Ha- I don't even know what you said- I am illiterate when it comes to golf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think everyone's point is this: instead of assuming and speculating FIRST ( with the understanding that you're open to revisiting the facts later), how about everyone just wait for the facts to come out first BEFORE jumping to over-dramatic conclusions? Just a thought... I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but is it possible the true facts would never have come out if there wasn't such an outrage? From what I've read, the police made up their minds that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong and that was the end of it. It wasn't until people started going nuts about it that they were forced to dig a little deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 1332711133[/url]' post='2421761']I think everyone's point is this: instead of assuming and speculating FIRST ( with the understanding that you're open to revisiting the facts later), how about everyone just wait for the facts to come out first BEFORE jumping to over-dramatic conclusions? Just a thought... I'm supposed to wait for the facts before expressing my outrage on Facebook?? But all my cool friends are doing it now!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but is it possible the true facts would never have come out if there wasn't such an outrage? That may well be. But while we're waiting for the facts to come out, it would help if, when discussing the case, people would stop assuming they knew what either Zimmerman or Martin were doing. There are actually people calling for Zimmerman to be killed, because nothing helps justify an irrational murder like another irrational murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts