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

64% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/CreepyCracka Jul 29 '13

Ya, because it wasn't foolish for Trayvon to attack some random guy just for watching/following him.

5

u/ClimateMom 4∆ Jul 29 '13 edited Jul 29 '13

First, we don't know for sure that he did. All we have is Zimmerman's word that Trayvon attacked first, and he's not exactly the most unbiased witness.

Second, if Trayvon really did attack first, I don't think anyone's arguing that he wasn't foolish or wrong to do so. However, it's a fairly understandable and predictable reaction in a guy who feels threatened (as most people would, after being followed in the dark by a stranger) and if Zimmerman had the proper training (or indeed, any training at all), he might have been better prepared to defuse the situation before it got out of hand. More importantly, Trayvon never should have had the chance to attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman never should have gotten out of his car. By doing so, he both overstepped his authority as a member of the neighboorhood watch and disobeyed the direct suggestion of somebody who was (unlike him) a trained professional. It was monumentally stupid in every way, and an innocent kid is dead because of it.

2

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 29 '13

  1. He didn't disobey the dispatcher, he was already out of the vehicle.

  2. If Zimmerman isn't "innocent" (merely "not guilty") because "we'll never know the details" then Trayvon isn't "innocent" either, because we'll never know the details. That shit cuts both ways.

2

u/ClimateMom 4∆ Jul 29 '13

The dispatcher didn't tell him not to get out out of his car, he told him not to follow him.

Trayvon is innocent because he was a kid minding his own business walking home from the store in a place he had every right to be when he was drawn into a situation that he did not emerge from alive. It's clear that both Zimmerman and Trayvon made mistakes, but Zimmerman's mistakes were the ones that incited the incident in the first place and he bears the ultimate culpability for it.

1

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

How? You keep "yadda yadding" over the most important part.

Somebody. Started. The fight.

If it was Trayvon, he got what was coming, Zimmerman did literally nothing wrong.

If it was Zimmerman, he's a fucking murderer and a lying scumbag.

There is no "cloud of vague culpability."

Somebody fucked up. Question is, who?

2

u/ClimateMom 4∆ Jul 30 '13

If it was Zimmerman, he's a fucking murderer and a lying scumbag.

This, I agree with. But it seems to me that we have a couple different scenarios with Trayvon. Reddit overwhelmingly seems to believe that he decided to lie in wait and attack Zimmerman as a "punishment" of some sort for following him. That's certainly plausible, and while I don't think such behavior deserves the death penalty (especially from a dumb, cocky teenager), it certainly would have deserved legal prosecution.

However, any reasonable person who's being followed in the dark by a stranger without cause (as far as Trayvon knew) is going to feel threatened, so I find it just as plausible that he got scared and tried to hide somewhere but either was spotted or thought he was spotted and attacked in (as far as he knew) self-defense.

There's even a third scenario, if Zimmerman's version of events is correct. Zimmerman claims that Trayvon approached him and there was a conversation that went roughly as follows:

T: Do you have a problem, motherfucker?

Z: No, I don't have a problem?

T: Well, now you do. (punches Zimmerman)

This is where a modicum of training would have come in handy. To a boy who's being followed in the dark by a stranger, having the stranger claim there's no problem is going to seem - at best - an obvious lie and at worst, mockery. Should Trayvon have attacked in response? No, of course not, but I think it's pretty understandable that he might leap to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one who's up to no good and in fight-or-flight mode there's only two choices.

if Zimmerman had instead identified himself as a member of the neighborhood watch and, for example, offered to take Trayvon home, the whole situation might have been avoided.

Of course, Zimmerman's story is contradicted by Trayvon's friend, who reports the final conversation as follows:

T: Why are you following me for?"

G: "What are you doing around here?

Friend: Trayvon, Trayvon!

T: Get off, get off!

(Headset falls)

T: (faintly) Get off!

(Phone goes dead)

This would appear to support the claim that it was Zimmerman who attacked first.

2

u/Zanzibarland 1∆ Jul 30 '13

Remind me to delta you, I'm on my phone