Monday, September 09, 2013

George Zimmerman Questioned After Allegedly Assaulting Wife's Family; Gun Involved

Well, this certainly seems to offer substantial support to the anti-Zimmerman position.

(via Reddit)


Blogger The Mystic said...

Nah, dude. Self-defense. Same deal as when he was charged with assaulting that police officer...and killing that guy.

7:39 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Yeah, I don't want to point any fingers, but it looks like one of us was wrong...

9:05 PM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

Well, you know I take no pleasure in being that guy who merely happened to be right on this one. Honestly, I never understood your position.

As I see it roughly:

Here we have one Trayvon Martin whom we know to have been on a simple trip to a store to purchase candy. Others claim this to have been his task, we have video evidence of him purchasing the candy, and we have candy in his pocket. He was on a logical route back from the store when he was killed. Trayvon Martin has no documented history of violence, but some minor, non-violent illegal behavior has been documented.

Additionally, we have one George Zimmerman whom we know to have been intending for Trayvon Martin to be detained and questioned by the police. We know he irrationally declared Trayvon Martin to be a "fucking punk." We know he proclaimed that these "fucking punks" "always get away." We know he disregarded advice from a police dispatcher to await the police, and we can very reasonably believe this to be on account of his desire to prevent the fucking punk from getting away AGAIN. George Zimmerman has a documented history of violence which includes domestic assault and assaulting a police officer.

We know there was an altercation between these two individuals and Trayvon Martin was killed. The relevant question is of the identity of the aggressor.

How anyone could reasonably believe Trayvon Martin to have started this altercation is truly beyond me. I am sympathetic to the position that we ought to suspend judgment given a lack of evidence, but this seems to me to set an extremely dangerous precedent. We can't have a world in which armed men can pick fights, slay their opponents without witness, and hide behind assertions of self-defense.

What think ye? I'm afraid I believe your inner contrarian got the best of you on this one. I know that you loathe the zany, irrationally gun-hatin' liberals, and I'm with you, but I can't find a way to reasonably doubt that Zimmerman (irrationally) started and ended this altercation.

10:11 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Well, I've been meaning to post on that for awhile. We had a hot-and-heavy discussion of that here for awhile, but I just didn't like talking about it. I did agree with the innocent verdict, but most people I like to agree with were on the other side of the issue, and just wasn't happy about having the position that I had. So I just basically let it drop. Funny, I've come close to posting a final post on it on each of the last two this stuff breaks...

6:57 AM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

*chants* Post, post, post, post! *chants*

This is a safe place where there is no wrong answer and everyone loves you.

Given our history in which you are almost always correct, I am entirely willing to be wrong here, I just don't yet see it.

7:02 AM  
Anonymous Jim Bales said...


My initial reaction was that Zimmerman should have been found guilty, but either by the trial or shortly after the verdict (my memory is hazy), I came to agree that the innocent verdict was correct, given the relevant law.

I thought Ta-Nehisi Coates summed it up well:
In trying to assess the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicting truths emerge for me. The first is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice.

I think the major issue is that the state law does not require armed citizens to de-escalate and disengage from conflict when they can reasonably do so.

And so, Zimmerman could lawfully "start and end" (as per Mystic) the altercation.

Had Martin been armed, Florida law would, as I understand it, allowed him to shoot and kill Zimmerman if Martin had felt threatened by Zimmerman's behavior.

So, in Florida, in an altercation between two armed individual, the law gives them more reason to shoot first and less reason to back down. That is, to me, as troubling as the profound injustice of Martin's death.


1:15 PM  
Anonymous Jim Bales said...


Coates has a follow-up post today which I find quite relevant. You might find it of interest.


4:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home