The Trayvon Martin incident

[CathyA]

Redfox......what I meant by that is that he has a history of drugs and stealing, so I don't consider him an "innocent". He was living with his father in Florida, because he got expelled from school. But all the initial pictures they showed of him were of a much younger boy. What if they had shown young pictures of Zimmerman?
And Martin might not have been "stoned" enough to make him docile. Doesn't it take awhile for THC to leave the body?
So many questions..............so few answers, unfortunately.

I hope this isn't inappropriate...........just a little funny aside. When my son was in Little League, his team was sponsored by T.........Heating and Cooling. So all these little kids were wearing ball caps with THC on them.

[Mighty Frugal]

I think bae is the only one who answered this honestly enough.
Maybe you would be so cool, calling 911 and all Alan, but I think you probably would more likely turn, say 'Hey, WTF are you doing? Why are you following me?'
Remember, it's night, which means it's dark, and you are minding your own business when this happens. You are going to be surprised, then frightened, then angry. I do believe you would confront the guy. You may not come out swinging, but it's dark, the guy is itching to 'be a cop' or whatever, you really don't know, maybe he's going to rob you, or beat you up, and things get out of hand pretty quick in tense situations.

I ask this question because, most people don't ask themselves this, or answer it honestly. Most women, I think, would run (home or to a neighbors because that is our training from day one, really) and most men, who are fairly sure of themselves (and all 17 year old young men are sure of themselves) would turn and say something like the above. Most would not run away. Or stop to call 911 ( "here, hold on a moment while I ring up 911...that's a good stalker") or identify themselves (why should they, it's their neighborhood, and really, who 'identifies' themselves to would-be robbers?)
I do believe 9 out of 10 men would turn and confront, just like I assume Travon Martin did. Zimmerman confronted, even though he was told not to and actually pursued to confront, with the added emboldening 'id' of a gun.

We do know many facts here. The kid was simply walking home from a store. He did not rob the store, he was not peeking in windows, or smashing lawn ornaments etc..Just walking home. He did not confront, or threaten Zimmerman, or even know he was there until Zimmerman confronted him.
Zimmerman, a cop wanna-be, self appointed neighborhood watch person with a gun (police tell neighborhood watch people to never carry a gun) sees the kid and calls the police. They tell him directly to not follow the kid. He ignores the cops and gets out of this car to follow, then confronts. I suspect the kid realized he was being followed at some point and turned to confront his stalker. Maybe Zimmerman already had his gun drawn, he certainly had the safety off. If the kid did throw a punch then that was his miscalculation, and probably more a symptom of being 17. Wasn't he, in fact, standing his ground? Somebody stalked him, threatened him, and he stood his ground. Isn't this kind of situation, in fact, what stand your ground is for? You are threatened and you use force to stop the threat? Zimmerman wasn't threatened until he forced himself into the situation.
Zimmerman WAS the threat!
Unfortunately he also had the gun. I don't think Stand Your Ground was designed to absolve the winner of a fist fight when it turns fatal. Zimmerman started this fight by simply being there with a gun. He was LOOKING for a fight. Travon Martin wasn't. But he was thrust into one by Zimmermans actions, just as bae, honestly, would be thrust into a confrontation by his stalker.

I don't believe Zimmerman set out that day to kill someone, but he did. It happened, and the person he killed was an innocent kid walking home from the store. He should pay the price.

Frankly I don't understand why the right (on Fox it's practically hysterical) is so adamant about defending this guy. It's either a gun thing or a race thing.

Great post. I completely agree

[Yossarian]

the defense narrative of him pursuing an older, bigger, unknown person

Trayvon was 5'11" and George is 5'7". So I'll give you older and unknown, but bigger kind of depends on your metric.

[redfox]

Redfox......what I meant by that is that he has a history of drugs and stealing, so I don't consider him an "innocent". He was living with his father in Florida, because he got expelled from school. But all the initial pictures they showed of him were of a much younger boy. What if they had shown young pictures of Zimmerman?
And Martin might not have been "stoned" enough to make him docile. Doesn't it take awhile for THC to leave the body?
So many questions..............so few answers, unfortunately.

I hope this isn't inappropriate...........just a little funny aside. When my son was in Little League, his team was sponsored by T.........Heating and Cooling. So all these little kids were wearing ball caps with THC on them.

That IS funny... those inadvertent cultural riffs are the best.

I do drugs. My stepson does drugs. We both use cannabis for pain. WTH does doing drugs & stealing have to do with this case? Only "innocent" people get murdered?

[redfox]

Trayvon was 5'11" and George is 5'7". So I'll give you older and unknown, but bigger kind of depends on your metric.

For sure. The teen was rather gangly, and the adult rather bulky. I imagine that it all figures in how each perceived threat.

[CathyA]

Redfox, I was answering your question about why I thought he might not be the innocent you were portraying, since you were using that term for Martin. If you were using "innocent" in reference to him walking home, not planning any crime, then yes, he was innocent. I'm just not sure he had an innocent past and think he had the potential to fight Zimmerman, rather than ask what he wanted.
But you do seem like you've made up your mind (like many of us)........only you have come to a different conclusion.
And you may be a well-mannered drug-user. Not all people are. I haven't a clue how Martin behaved on drugs. I've just read that he got into trouble because of his use.

[rodeosweetheart]

I guess I don'[t understand what you are saying, Redfox, since you are now dealing in terms of facts of the case, but you say you are talking about cultural stereotypes, cultural perceptions,etc.

When we were the jury in the admittedly non murder case (thank God) we were told we were to examine the evidence and find the facts.
Those facts have nothing to do with cultural perceptions on the part of spectators. Cultural perceptions, upbringing, internal beliefs may be relevant to what each party to the situation thought, perceived, and brought to the table, but not with what trial spectators and pundits think or say. I would put us all here in the category of spectators and pundits.

So if you are talking about the way the trial is covered, about "conversations about race" in our country, why try to talk about the facts of the case? The conversations about race do not change the facts, do not impact them, are not relevant to what actually happened. In fact, they seem in this case to obscure them. I liked the comment about Justice wearing a blindfold. What a beautiful concept.

So I am confused by what you are trying to say here.

As to what it means to be an American, one of the things I love dearly about our country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I also love the fact that those jurors are going to be doing their best to be impartial and follow the judge's rulings.

I guess I would put the justice system up there, the Constitution, things I love about our country.

We are not tried by public opinion, but a court of law.

[redfox]

I guess I don'[t understand what you are saying, Redfox, since you are now dealing in terms of facts of the case, but you say you are talking about cultural stereotypes, cultural perceptions,etc.

When we were the jury in the admittedly non murder case (thank God) we were told we were to examine the evidence and find the facts.
Those facts have nothing to do with cultural perceptions on the part of spectators. Cultural perceptions, upbringing, internal beliefs may be relevant to what each party to the situation thought, perceived, and brought to the table, but not with what trial spectators and pundits think or say. I would put us all here in the category of spectators and pundits.

So if you are talking about the way the trial is covered, about "conversations about race" in our country, why try to talk about the facts of the case? The conversations about race do not change the facts, do not impact them, are not relevant to what actually happened. In fact, they seem in this case to obscure them. I liked the comment about Justice wearing a blindfold. What a beautiful concept.

So I am confused by what you are trying to say here.

As to what it means to be an American, one of the things I love dearly about our country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I also love the fact that those jurors are going to be doing their best to be impartial and follow the judge's rulings.

I guess I would put the justice system up there, the Constitution, things I love about our country.

We are not tried by public opinion, but a court of law.

I love your reflections. I am most interested in the larger social picture regarding the changing conversation about race in the US. So much has changed in my lifetime; yet sometimes it seems as if basic prejudices are still so deeply rooted. I too love the jurisprudential concepts of innocent until proven guilty, being judged by a jury of one's peers, of Justice being blind -- I was raised by a constitutional lawyer! And, in such human places as the courtroom, the press room (if that even exists any more), and here, in our humble forum, impartiality does not exist.

I am most interested in how this trail brings light to the dynamic and changing national conversation on race. Does this help?

[redfox]

No, they have named him the defendant. Facts will determine whether or not he is the assailant. Let's not put the cart before the horse.

I am not one to second-guess the grand jury and their charge of second degree murder.

[Weston]

I am not one to second-guess the grand jury and their charge of second degree murder.

What grand jury??? If I recall correctly Zimmerman was charged without any grand jury being involved.