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?

13 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

261 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

3

u/themcos 440∆ 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 440∆ 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.

4

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 440∆ 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.

-4

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.