A reasonable person

[drmeow]

According to the EEOC, "In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a “reasonable person.”

Let's apply this concept of a reasonable person to Zimmerman and Martin.

After being told that it was not necessary to do so by a 911 operator and (presumably) that police were on their way, would a reasonable person have gotten out of his/her vehicle and pursued another person?

When walking home in the dark and being followed by someone in a vehicle, thinking they lost the follower only to have them show up again, and then having that other person get out of their vehicle and approach them, would a reasonable person assume hostile intent on the part of the person approaching them?

Having run away and not been successful at escaping, would a reasonable person, upon (presumably) being caught by that other person, fear for their life and hence attack that person?

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman became guilty the minute he got out of his vehicle.

I don't often put people on ignore - I currently only have 9 active DU members on ignore - and usually it is because of a manner in which they responded directly to me in a post (and a significant percentage of people I've put on ignore have been tombstoned). I'm making an exception in this case - anyone defending Zimmerman is going on ignore.

[Just Saying]

1. Like you, I only ignore people who are nasty to me directly.

Although I will admit to trashing all the threads where people were just calling each other names over the NSA thing.

I just don't understand defending Zimmerman. Wanting a fair trial is fine or not wanting to discuss it but I don't get defending him. It seems like they're talking around what they really think and either they defend him because they want people to be able to patrol their neighborhood ARMED to go after real or imagined "fucking punks" or they're flat out afraid of brown people.

Neither is an acceptable excuse.

They seem to believe if Z is found not guilty it somehow makes them right, but it doesn't! He still played judge, jury and executioner on an unarmed kid who was just walking back from picking up candy at the store. Not guilty in court isn't the same as not guilty in life.

[dkf]

3. So we are supposed to say he is guilty even though we think it is likely he will not be convicted?

Yeah that's probably what is expected.

[Just Saying]

4. I could give a shit what you say.

But most reasonable people will say someone who followed and killed an unarmed kid is a murderer whether or not they can convict him under Florida law.

Are you afraid of brown people?

Or do you like the idea of armed citizens patrolling their neighborhood?

[dkf]

6. Honestly I don't like guns around me.

And I'm in Hawaii surrounded by people of all races which is perfectly fine and a lot healthier for perspective in my opinion.

I don't pretend to know with a certainty who approached who or who did what. I would like to hear the forensics for that. I have a feeling I won't ever know for sure.

What happened is an absolute tragedy. I am sure George Zimmerman wishes he had never been out that night. Everyone would prefer we reverse time and redo that entire scenario.

I think both had their opportunities to have pulled back and we would have all been better off.

I read the autopsy report and it is horrifying to realize that here lies a young man, his body no longer functioning, who was like you or I just a bit ago. And I see his family who are mystified at how this could happen.

No what happened was not right. By my code I would say it was at least manslaughter but by law it looks like self defense. I'm not sure I could go with murder as I don't see the intent. I think that is where the difference lies with many.

[Just Saying]

9. Hawaii is lovely.

Spent 3 weeks hopping around 3 islands for my honeymoon.

I agree we may never know what happened. But while I think Zimmerman had many opportunities to pull back, I'm not certain Trayvon did.

Mr. Zimmerman's actions that we know of were aggressive IMO- following someone in the dark and carrying a loaded fire arm are aggressive even if they're not illegal. We know nothing for certain that Trayvon did that was aggressive-he was walking home, chatting up a friend on his phone and unarmed. There are witnesses to a fight but who started it and what happened depends on who you believe and I just don't believe Zimmerman.

One person was walking home minding his own business. Another was following a "fucking punk" (in his mind anyway) with a loaded gun. Now that first kid is dead and the second man claims he needed self-defense. I don't know what the jury will decide but regardless one person is mostly responsible that Trayvon is dead that night and its Zimmerman.

[lunatica]

2. Zimmerman started the entire thing and continued it until Trayvon was dead

Zimmerman went looking for trouble with Trayvon. He took a loaded gun and stalked Trayvon. Why would he do that? Zimmerman made a conscious choice to take a loaded gun to go after a black teenager. Why? Trayvon tried to get away and Zimmerman, instead of going home, or calling 911 again kept going after Trayvon even after the dispatcher told him not to. Why? Zimmerman found Trayvon and left his car to approach the teen. Why would he do that? He got close enough that there was a physical scuffle and he took out his loaded gun and killed Trayvon. Suddenly Zimmerman feared for his life? Really? He did all the stalking, and the chasing, and the killing. And he did it from the beginning to the end of the incident.

[Little Star]

7. That's where I'm at.

[pipi_k]

5. So...

A reasonable person is, basically, anyone who agrees with you?

I'm not defending Zimmerman, but neither am I condemning him.

I'm not deciding anything until the jury comes back with a verdict based on ALL the evidence.

So, if my reluctance to condemn Zimmerman is disturbing to you, then do what you gotta do and put me on your ignore list.

[drmeow]

8. You don't seem to get the concept

of "reasonable person"

And one of the the reasons why I'm going to put people like you on ignore is because I cannot be bothered to write the dissertation it would take to explain to you why your response says to me that you don't get the concept of a reasonable person. My life is just too short and I have better things to do. And one thing I've learned about DU over the past 3 years is that a large number of us (myself included) are dogmatic. I don't have a problem with that but I usually chose not to engage rather than to start a fight.

In this case it is not your reluctance to condemn Zimmerman which leads me to put you on ignore. It is your compulsive need to post a snarky comment on this thread when simply not posting was always an option. It fundamentally characterizes what I don't like about forums in general and is the reason why, after 6 years, I have under 2500 posts. Because no matter WHAT I say it seems like there is someone out there who just HAS to make a snarky comment about it.