I really think that’s doubtful. There’s no evidence of Zimmerman being connected to any “intelligence” agency. His dad is a retired federal judge IIRC, but that’s hardly the same thing.
That’s very interesting. I’d appreciate one or more sources for this, though.
Based on my current understanding of what happened (which could change as new facts are discovered), I completely agree with your last sentence. For Zimmerman to be justified (IMO) to use lethal force against Martin, he would’ve had to feel like his life was in danger - and I don’t mean in the sense that cops mean when anyone so much as questions their “authority”.
Otherwise, I also agree that the appearance of either Martin or Zimmerman should have no bearing on one’s judgement of the situation. Dressing up like a thug, flipping the bird in pictures, and telling “hoes” to “tighten up” in no way means that a person is asking to be shot and killed.
Personally, I’m not politicizing what happened per se, but I am politicizing how it’s been handled by the “authorities”. William Grigg had a good article about that on LRC the other day - I can dig up the link if you’d like.
Having read the Atlantic article (it’s very short), I don’t see how you’re reading too much into it at all. I also don’t see how John can logically conclude that Ta-Nehisi Coates is making any excuses for NBC. So it seems to me that he’s the one in error, not you.
"Mr. Weiner suggested that the prosecutor might have “overcharged” to retain the option, should she feel a murder conviction is slipping away, of asking the judge to instruct the jury to consider lesser offenses, like manslaughter. It is also possible, he said, that she might be trying to coax Mr. Zimmerman to the negotiating table to plead guilty to such a lesser charge. But, he added, it is impossible to say whether it is overly tough, since evidence has not yet been produced.
The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.
At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”
Either side in the case could request that the judge instruct the jury to consider that middle ground, and if the evidence supports such a finding the judge will in almost all cases comply, Professor Weisberg said. A confident prosecutor may not want to risk missing the toughest conviction, however, and a confident defense lawyer may not want to risk giving the jurors a lesser charge that they can choose instead of acquittal. And so, he said, the question may come down to, “Who’s feeling lucky?”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html
In today’s America (and for a long time beforehand), prosecutors are politicians.
On the second-degree murder charge, I think it’s certainly possible that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder (defined as “unjustified intentional killing without premeditation”). But that doesn’t mean the probable-cause affidavit is any good. And on the other hand, I think it’s certainly possible that Zimmerman actually killed Martin in self-defense, if (as Dershowitz says) Martin had gotten the upper hand in the struggle and was mercilessly pummeling Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the only way I see the truth possibly coming out is if the case actually goes to trial.
There’s no way to know how the physical conflict was initiated. We can only get Zimmerman’s version since Trayvon is dead. Did Zimmerman grab Trayvon, did Zimmerman tackle him, did he walk up to Trayvon with his gun raised? etc etc.
I’m not sure that even a trial would produce the truth. LogisticEarth pointed out there may not be enough to convict or vindicate Zimmerman. That might have changed in the last few days, though.
I have a hard time seeing 2nd degree murder. I think manslaughter would be easier to prove. There’s plenty of reasonable doubt about Zimmerman killing Martin unjustifiably. If there’s any question about it being self-defense at all then they can’t convict of 2nd degree murder.
I wish I could figure out why my posts keep getting eaten on “quick reply.”
Anyway, yes please I would like to read that article. And I agree that the authority (government and media) really botched this one.
But it’s not like this was going to solve any racial issues. Milquetoast suburban liberals don’t get it, and reactionary conservatives are delusional. I wish Zimm and the Martin’s all the best, I hope they can find closure and peace. And now maybe we can all go back to acting like racism is a relic of the past, only racists bring it up, and never hearing about the daily deaths of other young black men.
Obama’s Zimmerman Problem
[…]
Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, says that the charge against Zimmerman of second-degree murder was based on evidence and not influenced by the weeks of demonstrations, demands and threats from black leaders.
Perhaps. But from what the pubic knows, a charge of second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life, does not seem to stand up.
To convict, prosecutors must convince all 12 members of a jury that not only was Zimmerman in no danger of bodily harm, he did not believe he was in danger of bodily harm. He simply killed Martin in a “depraved” state of mind.
Nothing revealed so far seems to support that theory. […]
I was assaulted and threatened often growing up (I’m 5’7", 115lbs). I don’t pull any punches. Trayvon should have planned his social image better. Even aside from the improbability of Zimmerman calling the police and then randomly shooting someone, Trayvon essentially both set himself up for untimely demise and contributed to his killer’s lawful excuse. He wanted to play with fire and he got burned. He gets my Darwin Award nomination.
But was he convicted of anything? Canadian law allows for protecting private property, even against the police. However, the cops can play you on your ignorance.
Btw, even in my mid twenties I was still stopped by cops on the street when travelling and sent to secondary security checks every time I passed customs. Young male is as much a trigger group for suspicion as looking arabic.
Someone just sent me this:
Update #8 – The Trayvon Martin Shooting Case – All The Latest Developments
Hidden in that page is this:
The way people dress and act, unless and until they resort to violence, do not justify their being killed. For anyone to suggest it is so is the height of ridiculousness… and really draws into question how one can even come to that conclusion, and what their motivations are…
Just wondering, is that a response to the page in general That Old Guy linked to, or the video he embedded?
Who’s suggesting this?
It’s an attempt to establish the character of Trayvon.
It’s an attempt to establish the character of Trayvon.
The only relevant character of Trayvon or Zimmerman I want to know is their character during the incidents of the killing. I don’t care if both of them were previously mass murderers and child slave drivers. What matters is the specific indident of this killing. If Zimmerman confronted Tra and pulled a gun unneccessarily, or if Trayvon confronted Zimm unneccessarily, no amount of thuggery and violence can change the fact that one is the aggressor and one of them is dead.
His cothes are irrelevant. His photos are irrelevant. His fight club is irrelevant. These things do not make his death his fault, and giving him a Darwin award in this circumstance is… questionable.