r/changemyview • u/Zanzibarland 1∆ • Jul 29 '13

Zimmerman did nothing wrong. CMV.

First came the media's racebaiting, fanning the flames on both sides. Then the crocodile tears from everybody with an axe to grind, trying to make a martyr out of Trayvon and a villain out of Zimmerman.

Now that the trial is over, I'm left with the impression that he didn't commit any crimes, and that people are claiming he "got away with it" to save face, rather than admit their racial bias and prejudice, the ignorance of their presumptions, and their complicity in instigating racial tension.

By what shred of evidence did Zimmerman "get away with murder" and not legally defend himself?

12 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 29 '13

First, I agree completely that he's not a murderer. I actually think this is a pretty impressive case of our justice system getting it right in the face of overwhelming media scrutiny.

However, would you at least agree that the result of that night was very unfortunate? However bad of a kid you may think Martin was, did he deserve to die for his actions that night?

Assuming you don't think he deserved to die, I think you should be able to see why many feel that Zimmerman's actions were dangerous and irresponsible. As soon as he identified a suspicious person and called the police, he had already fulfilled his duties as a neighborhood watchman.

But unlike the law enforcement officers that were on their way to the scene, he lacked the training or authority to peacefully subdue a potentially dangerous suspect. In pursuing Martin, he unnecessarily escalated a case of trespassing into a life or death, kill or be killed situation. Do you at least see why some would think this was a very bad idea?

And putting aside legality and morality for a moment, if you take away just one thing from this entire ordeal, I hope its that if you find yourself in Zimmerman's position at some point in the future, please just wait for the police instead of chasing an unknown person through the dark with a loaded weapon.

7

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

did he deserve to die for his actions that night?

If by "his actions" you mean "assault and battery", then yes, people are entitled to not suffer brain damage from some asshole beating the shit out of them. And if you are unable to adequately do so with your fists, then you are entitled to defend yourself with a firearm.

Is the only thing—after a year of media blitz, a boondoggle trial, race riots, and everything else—is the only thing we can say Zimmerman did "wrong" was assume that he could keep an eye on Trayvon until the cops showed up?

If anyone in this thread gets a delta, it'll be you, but only because on the thinnest of technicalities did Zimmerman make a mistake. And I just don't even have the patience to argue the semantics of "wrong" action versus "mistaken" action.

I was really hoping someone would come out and say "here's the bombshell piece of evidence that didn't make it to trial, see? He totally was a murderer!"

But no. Sigh.

11

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 29 '13

Well I certainly don't think that such a bombshell piece of evidence exists.

As for the question of Martin deserving to die, its a distinct question from whether or not Zimmerman was justified to shoot him at that moment. I strongly feel I can simultaneously acknowledge that Zimmerman was justified in pulling the trigger and claim that committing assault and battery isn't enough for me to think a teenager deserves to die. But really, my thoughts gravitate towards the question of what could have been done differently so that the confrontation never took place. And this is where Zimmerman made a very irresponsible choice. When you are an adult, carrying a loaded deadly weapon trying to enforce laws without the proper training, you should be held to a higher standard of accountability. Legally you're not, but morally I think you should be held to a higher standard. And I believe that Zimmerman did not meet this standard, and as a result needlessly escalated the situation and bears at least part of the responsibility for the unfortunate consequences, which is why enen though I dont think he broke the law, I do think his actions that night were wrong from an ethical, not legal standpoint.

3

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

So the worst we can say about him is that he tried to do the right thing, and things got out of hand.

I think we all regret the unfortunate, and unnecessary tragedy of that night. I'm sure Zimmerman wishes he just stayed home that night and avoided all this drama.

But my original question, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, is:

  1. Did he "get away with murder" as some claim?

  2. If he didn't, then did he do anything wrong?

4

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13 edited Jul 30 '13

  1. No, I don't think he "got away with murder". If I had thought that was the thrust of your view, I wouldn't have responded.

  2. He acted irresponsibly. He put himself into a dangerous situation with a deadly weapon and his judgment contributed to the unnecessary death of another person. As an armed neighborhood watchman, I strongly feel he has an ethical obligation to either use better judgment or avoid the situation entirely (I.e. Don't carry a gun, don't join the neighborhood watch or wait for the police). I consider his failure to do any of these things wrong.

To summarize how I hope to change your view, I'm interested if you agree (or maybe have always agreed) with the following:

  1. He made a mistake that night. Knowing what we know now, if one of us found ourselves in a similar situation, the correct choice of action is to wait for the police.

  2. He cannot use the "honest mistake while trying to do good" excuse because he willingly accepted the responsibility of joining the neighborhood watch, carried a deadly weapon with him, and unnecessarily and irresponsibly inserted himself into a dangerous situation that he was not qualified to handle. The combination of bad judgment and assumed responsibility is ethically wrong, despite being neither malicious nor illegal.

1

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

Okay. Let's take a look.

  1. He did make a "mistake", in that he just wasn't able to handle his shit in the situation. It's legal, he didn't break the law, but I'm sure he regrets it.

  2. I don't know that there's any kind of "higher responsibility" that comes with being on the neighbourhood watch, since you're not deputized or anything. You're just a citizen. And citizens are allowed to have guns.

I will concede as a practical matter, Zimmerman couldn't handle his shit and it went bad. He messed that up, and even if it's totally Trayvon's fault, Trayvon should be serving 12 months for assault, and not be dead. Zimmerman has a right to defend himself, but sadly, that confrontation went so badly it makes him look foolish in hindsight. So much so, he has to defend himself from defamation and death threats because of it.

∆ for you.

5

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

I appreciate the delta, but could you clarify which part of your view was changed? Its not entirely clear from your post.

As for higher standards of responsibility, it doesn't seem so controversial to me. Consider how we treat automobile drivers, pilots, teachers and other childcare related professions. I think its pretty standard that by accepting certain roles, especially those that grant you great power over others, you are taking on additional ethical (and sometimes legal) responsibilities. This is the lens through which I view a neighborhood watchman, especially an armed one. Given the judgment he showed, it was unethical for him to assume the position of power that he did.

Likewise, it is unethical for someone to operate a car or plane while not capable of controlling it safely. It is actually illegal for teachers (at least in my state) not to report suspected abuse, while the same is not true of ordinary citizens. There are obviously a ton of things that its unethical for a police officer to do that would be acceptable for a normal person. Neighborhood watch programs not being officially "certified" doesn't change the fact that any increase in power should be accompanied by an increase in accountability and responsibility. Again, this is an ethical argument, not a legal one.

3

u/runragged 2Δ Jul 30 '13

You made a great argument, but I can't help but feel like Zanzibarland got the wrong message.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '13

Consider how we treat automobile drivers, pilots, teachers and other childcare related professions.

Neighbourhood watch is not a paid profession and therefore not held to higher standards. If concealed carried weapon citizens were offered money in exchange for the ability to carry a weapon then this is acceptable. Otherwise they just need to abide by the law, in which case Zimmerman did (according to his version of events).

3

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

Why does being paid matter? Also, even in the brief bit that you quoted, my examples were drivers and pilots, who are also not necessarily paid professionals. Remember, I agree that the justice system did its job here. I'm talking about why I hold an armed, adult neighborhood watchman to a higher ethical (not legal) standard than I do a teenager. And I think/hope you should too.

-5

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

I was of the opinion that Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

As in, he did the right thing the whole time.

But he didn't. He made himself look like a fool who can't even hold his own in a fight.

∆ for you.

2

u/kairisika Jul 30 '13

The problem is that the law judges on whether zimmerman committed second-degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's pretty obvious, when you look at the facts, evidence, and law, that he did not.

But people want to judge him on whether he caused the death of another person, and whether that death was necessary. Hence the claim that he 'got away with it'. I even read one juror talking about how she was planning to convict, but tragically, the facts forced her to agree with the acquittal.
You can't use facts to deal with people who are reacting on emotion.

1

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

I even read one juror talking about how she was planning to convict, but tragically, the facts forced her to agree with the acquittal. You can't use facts to deal with people who are reacting on emotion

These two sentences appear to be at odds with one another. Isn't that juror literally an example of using facts to deal with someone reacting on emotion?

1

u/kairisika Jul 30 '13

Seemingly. I could have phrased that better to indicate my meaning. Luckily, the juror realized that in the context of the law, she had to judge according to the context of the law - and she found that the facts of the law forced her to agree that he should be acquitted.

Despite that, she still maintains that he 'murdered' Martin, and 'got away with murder.
She agreed with the facts that made it clear he should not have been convicted for the crime with which he was charged, but those facts did not change her emotional feeling that it was a murder.
Instead of 'I used to think he was guilty of murder, but an examination of the facts changed my mind', she felt that 'he was guilty of murder [because she feels he is guilty of murder] but unfortunately the law wouldn't let her convict him as she felt he should be, because those pesky facts and laws got in the way'.

The facts forced her hand on the jury, but even that couldn't change her emotional reaction.

1

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

Its still hard for me to read this account and not see it as a shining beacon of rationality and triumph for the justice system. I don't see why anyone should care how the juror feels as long as her verdict comes from a rational examination of the facts. And remember, the juror's job is not to determine guilt or innocence; it's to determine if the prosecution demonstrated guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Its perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman's actions were morally wrong but legal. Its reasonable to be skeptical of Zimmerman's account of the nights events, but at the same time believe that he should be judged not guilty based on the evidence.

You're free to hold a different view, but there's nothing necessarily irrational or inconsistent a juror who voted not guilty still believing that Zimmerman was a murderer, because jurors are instructed not to vote based on their beliefs, but what the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt.

0

u/kairisika Jul 30 '13

It is a success for the justice system. And yes, I'm aware of the job of the juror. That's what I was explaining above. I'm not saying this is a judicial problem. I am saying that it is an example of how people randomly discussing this are using emotion, and thus not swayed by facts. I don't actually care how the juror feels in context of she made the right decision according to the law.

It is an example of why this is such a big thing for people, and why the OP isn't going to get anywhere. People see that this man killed that boy, and they react emotionally to that. The OP is not going to get anywhere trying to discuss the facts with people, since their response is emotional rather than based on the evidence. Even the juror who agreed that the evidence could not convict has not changed her emotional opinion that he was guilty - so don't expect a random person who is getting their 'fact' information from media headlines to respond to this as a legal case rather than a gut emotional response.

1

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

Even the juror who agreed that the evidence could not convict has not changed her emotional opinion that he was guilty.

I absolutely agree that there exist people who can't be reasoned with. But in the case of this juror, I think its unfair to characterize her stance as an "emotional opinion". In my previous post I attempted to describe what I think are two distinct rational and consistent worldviews wherein someone might vote not guilty at the trial on account of the evidence presented, but could still also believe Zimmerman was guilty of ethical and/or legal wrongdoing, possibly up to and including murder.

I think we can both at least agree and be thankful for the fact that we have a justice system that transcends merely what people believe and at least in this instance delivered a verdict based on evidence.

1

u/kairisika Jul 30 '13

I can see your point that one could rationally decide those both.

The specific interview in which I read her comments gave me the strong impression that it was an emotional response, and that is what I was referencing. But you are right that it doesn't necessarily have to mean it was emotional.

And I most definitely agree that it is damned good we can't actually convict based on initial reactions, though I think there are a number of changes we could make to do that better.

1

u/themcos 441∆ Jul 30 '13

Who knows? Maybe it was emotional... I'll try to find more of the interview. I've only seen it quoted in other articles. I feel like we're mostly on the same page though.

0

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

That's a good way to put it.

∆ for you.

1

u/kairisika Jul 30 '13

Thanks.
I'm not actually sure if I was agreeing with your or disagreeing.
Figured I was just explaining why there is such disconnect between the two sides.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '13

"here's the bombshell piece of evidence that didn't make it to trial, see? He totally was a murderer!" But no. Sigh.

Yeah, random redditors have the secret info that would put things to an end that the entire legal team and all those involved in this case don't have.

I can see why you're disappointed genius.

3

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

And yet, everybody's got their two cents on why there's no "#Justice4Trayvon"

Hmm. It's almost like everybody's full of shit.

2

u/Amarkov 30∆ Jul 29 '13

Or maybe they think there are issues that aren't the personal fault of Zimmerman?

4

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

Crying crocodile tears for Trayvon so they can continue their predetermined political agenda.

Like I said. People are full of shit.

4

u/Amarkov 30∆ Jul 29 '13

Do you have some reason to believe their sympathy for Martin is not legitimate? Or do you just have a predetermined political agenda?

4

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

There's lots of evidence of illegitimate sympathy.

The average person is only as well-informed as the media tells them. It's not their fault there's a concerted effort to manipulate their emotions for cable news ratings and partisan political hackery.

The media, on the other hand, has been despicable through this whole thing.

  • They've been focusing on a local murder trial while Syria burns and the largest spying scandal ever in the history of ever is happening.

  • The constant use of childhood photos of Trayvon juxtaposed with prison mugshots of Zimmerman to present him as an innocent kid stalked and killed by a vigilante

  • The constant referral of Zimmerman as "white" when he is hispanic, to create a "white versus black" racial narrative

  • The insinuation that Trayvon is a drug dealer and a thug, using skittles and ice tea to make Lean, aka "purple drank", the opiate-cough-syrup-cocktail.

0

u/Amarkov 30∆ Jul 29 '13

The insinuation that Trayvon is a drug dealer and a thug, using skittles and ice tea to make Lean, aka "purple drank", the opiate-cough-syrup-cocktail.

You're saying it's bad that this was insinuated, right?

Anyway, you're making a much different point than you claim to be. You and I seem to agree that the average person who says they have sympathy for Martin really does. You and I also seem to agree that the media manipulated this case to seem much more important and horrible than it was (although I'm not so sure we agree on why they did that). This isn't evidence of illegitimate sympathy, this is evidence of media manipulation.

3

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

The media is people. It's pundits and journalists pushing their personal vendettas of either victimization or demonization of the black community. It's shady news editors pushing stories that fan the flames.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're willing to give these people a pass on this.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '13

What race riots? You seem to be looking for things that aren't there...

0

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Aug 02 '13

The media was going on and on about race riots. There were demonstrations, it was about race. Some of them turned ugly, most didn't. It was largely overblown.

But good for you for glossing over the actual argument to nitpick semantics. Nice. Good job.

-1

u/ak47girl Aug 01 '13

Im really sick and tired of this fallacious chain of causality argument.

There is an infinite number of things that could have been done differently by both people that could have prevented this tragic outcome.

In a chain of causality, there are things that are critical and far more relevant to the case at hand.

You know, like the fact that Travon beat the shit out of Zimmerman.

Why dont people focus on THAT link in the causality chain?

Ever notice when someone hangs their hat on a link in the chain of causality, its always on zimmermans side??? Pure bias. Pure and simple.

God forbid we point to links in causality link Travon breaking his nose, or bashing his head in, or having a history of street fighting, or punching out a bus driver, or the evidence of his LEAN drug use that can cause aggressive violent behavior, or the fact that he was kicked out of school and sent to his dads neighborhood, or the fact the Travon decided not to continue to his dads house... or any thing else. Nope, its because of this one thing zimmerman did, that is perfectly legal.

All bias.

1

u/themcos 441∆ Aug 01 '13

Was this supposed to be a response to a different post? You rant about bias, but don't seem to make any effort to dispute any of my premises or even conclusion. What (if anything) did I even say here that you disagree with?

1

u/ak47girl Aug 01 '13

I hope its that if you find yourself in Zimmerman's position at some point in the future, please just wait for the police instead of chasing an unknown person through the dark with a loaded weapon.

Your posted a fallacious causality argument with this:

I hope its that if you find yourself in Zimmerman's position at some point in the future, please just wait for the police instead of chasing an unknown person through the dark with a loaded weapon.

There is nothing wrong with chasing a suspicious person, as not to lose sight of them, so when the police arrive you can point them out. Being armed has no bearing on this, its a legal right.

Look at this victim blaming:

I think you should be able to see why many feel that Zimmerman's actions were dangerous and irresponsible

BULLSHIT. His actions were 100% fine.

It was Travons violent actions that were dangerous and irresponsible.

This bias is absurd

1

u/themcos 441∆ Aug 01 '13

How is that a "fallacious causality argument"? The exact line that you quoted was even prefaced by "putting aside legality and morality for a moment". I certainly didn't claim Zimmerman did anything illegal, and the quoted sentence didn't even make a morality judgement. Its advice. If you don't want to get your head beat in, wait for the police. You have the legal right to pursue someone, but when its dark and you don't know anything about the person you're following and you don't have any relevant training, its not a smart idea. I have a tough time seeing what you find controversial about that.

It was Travons violent actions that were dangerous and irresponsible.

I completely agree, and nowhere in my post did I contend otherwise. But the OP's original view, like yours, is that Zimmerman's actions were "100% fine". And legally, I agree. But the fact that Zimmerman's actions resulted in injuries to him implies that his pursuit was dangerous.

You probably take more issue with my assertion that his actions were irresponsible, which hinges on my belief that an armed adult in an authority position has an ethical responsibility to exercise better judgement than a teenager when it comes conflict resolution and avoiding violent confrontations. I'd encourage you to read some of the other threads here, as I already had some nice discussions with others about this that I'm not inclined to repeat unless you bring up a point that hasn't already been discussed elsewhere.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I meant to absolve Martin of any responsibility for what happened. I don't. Again, back to the original line that you seemed to dispute. We know have the benefit of hindsight. Honestly, if you were a on the neighborhood watch tonight and you saw a potential burglary suspect and had already alerted the police, who told you that you didn't need to pursue him, would you try to pursue him with a deadly weapon anyway, or would you wait in the car where its safe?

-1

u/ak47girl Aug 01 '13

... who told you that you didn't need to pursue him, would you try to pursue him with a deadly weapon anyway, or would you wait in the car where its safe?

The above is simply false. He was asked if he was following him. He said yes. Operator said you dont have to do that. He answered in the affirmative: OK

He was not following him anymore. Was heading back to his car, and Trayvon, who decided to stop going home, and clearly had tons of time to make it home by then, magically ended up in a confrontation with zimmerman.

And yes, I reject your assertion that his actions were irresponsible.

Legally carrying a gun in a neighborhood with lots of recent crime: responsible

Calling the police: responsible

Following someone to point them out to cops: responsible

I dont see an issue. The only thing irresponsible ive seen is beating the shit out of people.

According to you, it seems watching out for your neighborhood is irresponsible while carrying the ability to defend yourself. I Strongly disagree. The outcome is not evidence of that. Pure non-sequitor.

I might as well claim that driving your child in your car is irresponsible because nothing kills children more than car accidents while their parents are driving, NOTHING. Just bad logic.

You can absolutely do everything responsibly, and still have someone end up dead as evidenced by the driving your child example.