So the short fat Latino dude ...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Your line of reasoning is good up to the point that if the neighborhood expected the police to satisfy their needs, they wouldn't have implemented a neighborhood watch in the first place. The police always advise others to let them handle it. The problem is that there's always a conflict of interest between them being the best qualified and them just saying others should let them handle it because it's their job security. The police know very well that they are reactive while the neighborhood watch is proactive. The neighborhood knows that too. Zimmerman was a product of that disparity. To his shame he became over zealous in his proactive role; but, to say he's not an authority of any kind is a bit over the top:

[Gomer Pyle]CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST![/Gomer Pyle]

If poor judgment was a crime, he'd be guilty.

You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to. You can't take the right of way in an intersection, any more than I can. One of us can yield the right of way to the other, one of us is (probably) entitled to the right of way according to the rules of the road, but if neither of us yields, there will be conflict.

Authority is like that, unless it is recognized by both parties, there is no authority. In a situation where the rules for authority are clear, say with a policeman and a civilian and the policeman is acting within his authority by the rules, it is only the acceptance by the civilian of the authority of the policeman that makes the authority real. When that authority is challenged, there can be conflict, possibly fatal results. The policeman might have been due the authority, but he'd be (could be) dead right. That's not authority.

But Zimmerman's role doesn't even rise to this level, there's no formal set of rules granting any kind of authority to him, certainly no authority greater than what Martin was entitled to. Unless you cite the law of the jungle or might makes right. We live in a society that has explicitly rejected those frames of reference though. In our civil society, all appeals to that kind of justification are attempted are rejected.

The only basis for Zimmerman's "authority" came from his confidence that he could shoot his way out of any situation he might find himself in. If you have other evidence of some other authority granted to him, I'd like to hear it.

[Undertoad]

Martin's parents are entirely blameless in his death

It's pretty much impossible to know this.

Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Graudian

a white Hispanic man

Yeah, this may have confused some of you who haven't been following this trend. "White" is now officially defined as any race or culture that is one shade lighter than Samuel L. Jackson, that becomes successful. Asians, Hispanics, you name it, if they get jobs and educate their children, they can now achieve that wonderful dream of being called white.

By this rule, Puerto Ricans and domesticated Cubans are now white, but Mexicans remain Mexicans. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (South only please) are also now officially white, and the Vietnamese, Thais, and Filipinos have completed their applications and are awaiting the media's decision.

Hawaiians are also white, although they are angry at the decision and would prefer to remain Hawaiian.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's pretty much impossible to know this.

Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.

Let's take a look at the two positions.

sexobon says the parents are equally responsible for Martin's death as Zimmerman is.

I say Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death.

What can we agree on here? I say Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Do you agree? What else, rather, who else had a part in his death? I say Martin also had a part, certainly he was there, he was a direct party to the interactions that led to his death. What else, no, who else was involved in his death? What was that involvement and how did it contribute to Martin's death?

You're telling me my narrative here is faulty, what are the faults you see and what is the correct narrative?

[Undertoad]

I'm saying that based on what we can't possibly know about the event, neither you nor sexobon can possibly say to what degree Trayvon's parents played a role in what decisions may or may not have led to his death.

Can we agree on that? You don't know what occurred between the points in time that hard evidence confirms facts. All you have is witness accounts and Zimmerman's own story, any of which may be faulty or incomplete.

And yet the two of you, with this lack of information, have developed narratives on the opposite extremes on the parents roles. Completely at fault or completely not at fault.

[BigV]

I am talking about what we do know. What we can know. What reasonable people can agree to.

What I'm not talking about is some unknown and unknowable "butterfly effect". Let's talk about what we do know now, and keep an open mind as to what we may learn in the future. That's not a stretch for you or me or sexobon or most anyone.

Another point I suggest we agree on is that making an affirmative assertion, such as sexobon has (granted he prefaced his all-caps statement with "if...then". Perhaps he'll try to hide behind that fig leaf), requires some evidence. But that a statement of the absence of something, like my position, doesn't, indeed can't be definitively proved. Importantly, it can be disproved.

There is the difference between our positions. I reject sexobon's statement that Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death, notwithstanding his caveat about teaching discretion and valor. Show me the evidence, I say. To you, who challenges my point that they're blameless, I ask you to show me what blame they DO have, to support your opposition.

[Undertoad]

Your assertion that "you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is." ...is not challenged by your unprovable counter "Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death."

We can't show your statement to be true, and if we show your statement to be false, it doesn't mean that sexobon's statement is true or false. So you're not really challenging his point.

To really work this, the word "responsibility" has to be defined. What would constitute parental responsibility in this case?

[sexobon]

Now guys, don't go putting words in my mouth. I said neither that the responsibility for Martin's death was 50/50 for Zimmerman vs. Martin; nor, Zimmerman vs. Martin's parents. I didn't assign any proportions at all.

Originally Posted by BigV

I'll say definitively that you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is.

I didn't. I was speaking of parents in general. For all I know, Martin's parents may have taught him that lesson and he chose to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.

BigV doesn't speak for me, toadstool.

Originally Posted by BigV

If I drive through a green light and am hit from the side by someone running the red light, I bear *no* responsibility for the collision.

Tell that to the family of your passenger who was killed if the collision could have been avoided by you driving defensively.

Originally Posted by BigV

You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to.

That's part of the victim profile.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Take it as an indication of real hurt.

I'm so sorry. Stiff upper lip, babe.

My point, often overlooked here, is that a young man named Trayvon Martin could have saved his own life if he had used more discretion in his interaction with an errant George Zimmerman. That deficit, regardless of source or relative proportion, was the only aspect of his predicament that Martin had any control over. Many of you are not ready to accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in life or death situations outside of healthcare. I hope that you and your loved ones never have to pay the price for such narrow-mindedness as Martin did.

[Lamplighter]

Edited for accuracy, that should be written as...

My point, often overlooked here, is that a young man named George Zimmerman could have saved a life if he had used more discretion in his interaction with an peripatetic Martin Travon. That deficit, regardless of source or relative proportion, was the only aspect of his predicament that George had any control over. Many of you are not ready to accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in life or death situations outside of healthcare. I hope that you and your loved ones never have to pay the price for such narrow-mindedness as George did.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... To really work this, the word "responsibility" has to be defined. What would constitute parental responsibility in this case?

Undertoad appears to be the only one who kinda, sorta, maybe gets it. My saying that parents can fail their children by not teaching them to go out of their way to avoid hostilities is not the same as saying that parents are responsible for the occurrence or outcome of hostilities. People have free will to become combatants and some hostilities cannot be avoided.

Both domestic and international law differentiate between combatant and noncombatant status whether civilian, police or military. Those who still want to hold Zimmerman accountable for murder in consideration of the totality of his actions, rather than just his actions as a combatant, are essentially ignoring those conventions. Ignoring them on a larger scale would allow police and military personnel to use any level of retaliation against anyone who tried to kill them, even after their opponents surrendered or are otherwise rendered noncombatant, by simply taking the totality of their opponents actions into consideration.

It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status. Therefore, when I said "Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE." The key is "POTENTIALLY." I was not only referring to parents in general; but, limiting parental responsibility to pre-hostilities. After people become combatants, they're pretty much on their own barring intervention by anyone else willing to enter combatant status. The gist of the idea is to keep minors and others ill prepared for hostilities from entering combatant status in the first place. Your children can live; but, they don't have to live. You may be able to influence that outcome by having a conversation with them about discretion being the better part of valor.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Edited for accuracy, that should be written as...

[paraphrasing mine]

OK Lamp, I give up, you've convinced me that Trayvon Martin is worth more to you as a dead martyr than as a living human being. You should've asked that club to give you a membership card to present here so you wouldn't have had to do so much writing.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

. . . and as a liberal who hates guns, i think the jury got it right. surprise! . . .

Once you lose the gun-hatred, IM, you will no longer be genocide-friendly.

That's a good place to be, morally.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Sexobon, proceeding through the green light -- with a glance around to see if somebody else is driving like he's on crack and he stole the car -- is driving defensively. You're straining perhaps more than is called for, even with this crowd.

His point, which doesn't seem to register with you, was that not all tragedies are legally actionable. Some are just tragic.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

His point, which doesn't seem to register with you, was that not all tragedies are legally actionable. Some are just tragic.

True enough. But generally, if the tragedy involved the deliberate shooting dead of another person that's more than just a tragic accident :p

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status.

Long before preaching legal concepts, you should first learn basics. 'Not guilty' is not 'innocent'. Not guilty only says proof of his guilt was insufficient. We know Martin did nothing wrong. That is a fact. We also know Zimmerman did action after action that violated his responsibilities and the rules.

1) Neighborhood Watch means only observe. He did not do that. He got out of his vehicle.

2) The police told Zimmerman to not follow. An order from an authoritiy. He ignored the order.

3) Neighborhood Watch says to stay away from a suspect. So as to not create a confrontation. Instead Zimmerman got closer. He foolishly acted as if he had some authority. He clearly did not.

4) Neighborhood Watch says no guns. Zimmerman violated that gun rule. That alone says he could never be innocent.

Zimmerman was wrong for multiple reasons. Is that sufficient for a guilty verdict? Apparently not. Especially when law enforcement did no investigation for a full month. Does that prove he was innocent? Not by a long shot. You should have known that. Obviously you have no grasp of two completely different terms - "not guilty" and "innocent".

Requirements for being responsible increases significantly once one carries. The consequences of being irresponsible should also increase. Unfortunately, Florida's 'stand your ground law' does not encourage that always required increase responsibility. Florida legalized killing only because an adult acted like a child - was emotional.

We know Zimmerman was so irresponsible as to violate four rules - and more. He was not innocent. But the flawed investigation could not prove enough guilt for a prison sentence. He was far from innocent for four and more reasons. But extremist rhetoric, a binary world, only sees the world in black and white. Therefore assumes 'not guilty' is same as 'innocent'. It isn't.