Talk:Trayvon Martin

	This Racism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

George Zimmerman should get his own article

First, I want to recognize that we are all very well-intentioned, and I think folks have done an excellent job with this article. However, I think having an article on Martin and no article on Zimmerman unwittingly amounts to victim-focusing. This is exacerbated by the fact that we make the Martin article much longer in order to talk a lot about Zimmerman. A fair amount of this page's content needs to be migrated to a new article on Zimmerman. I plan to do this soon, but anyone is free to beat me to it. Rand0 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

An alternate proposal: instead of scattering the Trayvon Martin case into separate articles (...and the present article, though titled "Trayvon Martin" is really about the case, not the guy, and thus a focus on Zimmerman is not unusual), I've been thinking about incorporating this article into an article about race and law enforcement in the US, given that with a bit of distance, it's possible to think of the Martin case as part of a story that goes through Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, and now Baltimore. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to write that article on race (racism) and law enforcement in the US. However, I believe the content of this article is too long to justify moving it into that article. The case should get mentioned in the article, but not thoroughly discussed because George Zimmerman has never been a cop. We should also start an article on racism and vigilante violence, where this case is discussed at some length, but incorporating this entire article, or even half of it, in that article is not viable if we want to give equal weight to other examples without making that article TL;DR. Peace. Rand0 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You wrote. "I want to recognize that we are all very well-intentioned." No. You're not. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.169.144.174 / talk} 10:33, 13 August 2016‎ (UTC)

Zimmerman, arrested or not?

So, after the shooting Zimmerman was taken into police custody, handcuffed, questioned, and released. Does this count as an arrest or not? CorruptUser (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Do any reliable sources say that he was placed under arrest at this point? I've seen several sources saying he wasn't. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading wikipedia. He was taken into custody, handcuffed, etc, but since they didn't have enough evidence to refute a self-defense claim by law they couldn't make an arrest. Sorry about that. CorruptUser (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Rational Wiki, My Ass

This is the most jaundiced piece of bullshit writing I've ever read. 173.169.144.174 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent and descriptive feedback. --Ymir (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You do realize you are free to edit any pages here, right? Petey Plane (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I do? Why are you replying to me with that question? --Ymir (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to the BoN. Petey Plane (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Two peculiar passages

I'll cut to the chase. There are two passages in the article that I found confusing.

It's rumored that if you say 'Trayvon Martin' three times into a mirror, a Donald Trump supporter will show up to defend slavery.

What's the meaning behind this joke? This article doesn't mention Molyneux, and the Molyneux article doesn't not mention the Trayvon Martin case either, so what's the connection? Does Molyneux have very odd/vocal views about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman or something? Does he harp on the case as confirmation of his beliefs? Or is this simply a potshot at a racist son of a gun just for the heck of it? I was also struck by the joke's placement, because it's placed right at the end of a fairly serious section about the ambiguities of this case.

To use some of these templates, it was not enough that Zimmerman be a trigger-happy vigilante crank. It was not even enough if Zimmerman made "a hair-trigger assumption" that "'black male' equals 'up to no good.'" No, it was also necessary that Zimmerman be white, firstly to play to stereotypes of racists as cross-burning terrorists in white hoods, secondly on account of the idea that to be "racist" requires a quantum of collective power that only white people possess.

I'm not sure what's going on here. It seems to me this is trying to introduce the point that "Zimmerman was described as white, but that's not true," (which is what the paragraph after it discusses) but there's a lot of extra baggage. For one, what's the deal with "firstly to play to stereotypes of racists..."? Leaving aside the question of whether it can actually be considered a stereotype, what's the purpose of saying people were comparing Zimmerman to KKK members? It seems to be implying the comparison is incorrect, but in what way? Is it saying that Zimmerman isn't white, so it's not entirely accurate to compare him to white supremacists? (In which case, it's worth nothing there are minorities who do support white supremacy.) Or is saying Zimmerman's use of violence was different the kind used by the KKK? (In which case, how?) DietMondrian (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying about the first quote you presented. After presenting it you ask why it's there and then say that the article doesn't mention Molyneux, so why are you mentioning Molyneux in relation to the quote and the article??

The second quote you presented doesn't say anything about KKK members but it is clearly written by someone trying to promote an 'alt-right' view of the situation. The passage is suggesting that society wants to persecute white people, so it was "necessary" for the woke powers that be that Zimmerman be (portrayed as) white. I will remove it if you don't. FairDinkum (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the entire section in question FWIW. Vee^Meow? 16:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention: "supporter" links to Stefan Molyneux, which is why I brought him up. I know Stefan is a fan of Donald Trump (which is what "Donald Trump supporter" is alluding to), and I know that Stefan is super racist, but I was wondering if there was any deeper connection.

I thought it was referring to the KKK because "cross-burning terrorists in white hoods" is pretty much the popular (American) image of Ku Klux Klan members, especially those from the 20th century, but otherwise, I think you put it well. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but now that you mention it, it does sound something someone from the alt-right would say about the case. DietMondrian (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

They do get sneaky about their wording. Sorry for not paying enough attention to get the Molyneux and KKK references, that was my fault. FairDinkum (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Stand your Ground

I want to add something about the Stand your Ground law because there is an interesting quirk to it that I think is overlooked and it is a serious issue with law as it stands - particularly in this case. People don't seem to question the fact that Trayvon didn't assault Zimmerman and he was legally using Stand your Ground himself. He felt threatened by a large man following him who was armed so Trayvon Martin had the legal right to stand his ground and defend himself. That the issue with this law - both people can implement Stand your Ground so it basically becomes a show down. Does that make sense? I'd like to add it but can't figure wording out right. I'm sure @FairDinkum will come along soon to so us how it's done...Heh...Aceⁱ⁹ 00:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A claim of self defense is generally viable for an incident in which which a reasonable person would believe that there is imminent risk of death or serious harm. Having a nose broken and getting one's head slammed onto concrete is legal justification for an immediate lethal response pretty much everywhere in the US. Merely being followed by someone and feeling threatened does not meet that standard. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're being followed by someone with a gun I think there's more leeway there. Also we're not talking about mere self-defense laws, we're talking about "stand your ground" laws, which are, by definition, more permissive than traditional self-defense laws. Vee^Meow? 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No difference at all in this respect, legally speaking. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is not enough credible information about the altercation to make the judgements being discussed here. I think Ace's point should be included in the article, but it has to be presented as background information rather than speculation. FairDinkum (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the BoN's claim is specious, Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by Martin 'standing his ground', and there is no indication his head was 'slammed onto concrete', he could have slipped and gravity would do the rest. Even the broken nose could have occurred by an accidental headbutt, or Martin trying to get out of a hold. FairDinkum (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell there is not enough credible information about the altercation to make the judgements being discussed here." That Zimmerman killed Martin was not in question. The question was whether he did so in justified self defense. The standard of evidence here is proof beyond reasonable doubt that he did not meet the relevant standards for justified self defense. Because, as you say, there is not much credible information, he was acquitted.

"Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by Martin 'standing his ground'" "Standing your ground" involves just standing there, as opposed to running away or attempting to do so. It does not itself involve any combative actions taken, the justification (or not) of which concerns self defense more generally.

"and there is no indication his head was 'slammed onto concrete'" To quote the current article: "what is known is Zimmerman and Martin got into a fight, Zimmerman received a fractured nose and lacerations on his head from where it was banged into the concrete sidewalk". Lots of possible scenarios could have caused those injuries, but there is insufficient evidence to rule out justified self defense. As for Ace's point as written, that's just not how the law works. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you claim is 'not how the law works' in regards to Ace's point? Ace pointed out that both Martin and Zimmerman had the same rights under the Stand Your Ground law. Is that not true? You keep mentioning that there is no evidence of what actually happened yet you said that having your nose broken and 'head slammed into concrete' justifies a lethal response. That is irrelevant and pure conjecture. When you were countered with my equally opposite irrelevant conjecture, you responded by talking about the lack of evidence. I'm not going to go so far as to say you are obfuscating, but you certainly aren't being clear about what you have been claiming. FairDinkum (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You also say that there is insufficient evidence to rule out justified force. Well there's insufficient evidence to rule out that bigfoot was involved. And there is insufficient evidence to rule out that Martin was legally standing his ground. The stand your ground law is not a law that only allows you to stand still while you are being attacked, and it is not a separate law from self-defense, it is a clause in self-defense law, which allows a person to not have to retreat before inflicting potentially deadly force. It comes from 'Castle doctrine' which allowed people to stand their ground in their homes. You seem to be arguing that Zimmerman's acquittal was legally justified but nobody made an argument that claimed it wasn't. FairDinkum (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, just because Zimmerman was legally exonerated doesn't mean that the Stand Your Ground law that allowed for that is just. Zimmerman was told by police dispatch not to confront Martin and he did so anyway. Clearly he was the instigator of the altercation, but the Stand Your Ground law is allowed to kick in after the altercation has begun, which is ridiculous. It means that anyone can attack another person, kill that person during the attack, and not be held accountable. Without the Stand Your Ground law, that would be 2nd degree murder. It's rather pathetic that the Republicans who get these Stand Your Ground laws enacted claim they are being tough on crime when they have really just created a loophole for murder. FairDinkum (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Vee^Meow? 21:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A "stand your ground" law just means that a person does not have a duty to retreat in a self defense situation before using some level of force, with particulars depending on jurisdiction. It does not change the general "imminent danger as judged by a reasonable person" standard for engaging in such actions at all, and does not permit duels. As explained above, merely being followed or feeling threatened does not meet that standard. If Martin felt threatened because Zimmerman was following him, and therefore attacked him, that would be unlikely to pass muster as a claim of self defense in court. In contrast, if Martin attacked Zimmerman as above, brought him to the ground, broke his nose, and hit his head against the pavement, that would represent a situation for which violent, even lethal defensive action would be legally justified (even in duty to retreat jurisdictions). Both parties in this scenario have the same rights, but their actions are different in legally-significant ways.

As a point of clarity, criminal cases in the US generally operate on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, and typically the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence. Meaning that, if there is a plausible explanation for some set of evidence which does not have a defendant guilty of the accused crime, the defendant is to be acquitted. Given the available evidence, it's plausible that Zimmerman acted in justified self defense, so he was acquitted. The "self defense" claim is what's important here, not the "stand your ground" part. Note that the police let Zimmerman go after the shooting after correctly judging that there was insufficient evidence to refute a claim of self defense.

As for self defense, it is a legal justification for what would otherwise be unlawful violence, enacted to defend oneself somehow. Generally speaking, the minimum threat for which Person A may use violence in self defense against Person B is Person B committing the crime of assault againt Person A. This is, to repeat, a crime, and "stand your ground" laws do not give people license to assault one another. Person C following Person D and Person D feeling threatened does not constitute Person C assaulting Person D. Person D does not have a duty to retreat from Person C, but neither does Person D have a legal justification for using violence against Person C.

As a hypothetical example, consider what might have happened if Martin survived the gunshot, and they both went their separate ways. There is still no clear evidence beyond testimony of the particulars of what happened, and they both claim self defense, with the other said to be guilty of battery (a serious charge). With plausible scenarios where either could claim justified self defense, both are acquitted (if the cases even make it to trial). If, instead, there happened to be a video record of the incident clearly showing what happened, likely one or the other (though possibly both) would instead be convicted, with the other likely being able to make a claim of self defense.

"doesn't mean that the Stand Your Ground law that allowed for that is just" Which is not the same question as what the law actually is and means.

"Zimmerman was told by police dispatch not to confront Martin and he did so anyway" Zimmerman was told that by a 911 dispatcher, not a police officer. And even if he had been, police in the US do not have arbitrary authority to order people around. A police officer in that situation would not have had lawful authority to order Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

"Clearly he was the instigator of the altercation" Zimmerman was clearly the instigator of the encounter. How the actual fight came about is uncertain.

"Without the Stand Your Ground law, that would be 2nd degree murder" If, as has been commented, Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman's behavior and physically attacked him (perhaps incorrectly believing that the "stand your ground" law actually allowed that), Zimmerman's lethal response would have been justified self defense even in duty to retreat jurisdictions, as Martin was apparently shot after Zimmerman had fallen on his back. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)