Reconsidering George Z.

[sg909]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/florida-george-zimmerman-arrest/

 

In light of this information how will someone who heartedly defended George Zimmerman deal with the cognitive dissonance? A good argument might be to say "George Zimmerman was under such immense public scrutiny that he felt trapped and his brain responded to the environmental stimuli. After all he was at constant threat!"

 

I will continue to ask the question: How was George Zimmerman's actions that night not a violation of the non-aggression principal and UPB? After all the only objective evidence we have from the actions that night is that he followed Martin in a menacing manor. I don't pretend to understand completely UPB but ill take a shot. If it is OK for a man to follow another man in a room then both men will follow each other there by failing to follow one another. However if it is ok for a man minding his own business to walk away from another man, or interact with them if the interaction is agreeable, then I feel this is universally logical as I understand it.

 

George Zimmerman did what United State Police do all the time. George Zimmerman had lots of interaction with local police. To say what George Zimmerman did is ok is to ignore the non-aggression principal. Im asking all of you to be empathetic and try to put yourselves in Martins place that night. If you can do that, then apply the objective evidence, which is the phone conversation, how can you not come the conclusion that his actions were predatory and mimic'd state action both practically and philosophically?   

[Zava]

You're not alone. It's one of the very few things I disagree with Stefan about. The teenager's murder has incorrectly become about the stand your ground law and gun control itself. Here's an example from today:  

[TheRobin]

Well, Stef made the case with the evidence that was known, if you disagree, then the only way for this to be productive is actually adressing the claims and evidence that were used as their basis.

[sg909]

I dont find eye witness evidence to be objective, allot of the evidence that Stefan pointed to when making his claims were subjective in nature. Here is what we know objectively, TM was followed by a stranger in a car at night when he was alone, this escalated to him being chased on foot after running away, the last thing GZ said to the operator on the phone call was "have the officer call me". 

 

No one objectively knows who initiated aggression when these two men confronted each other, but we can objectively say it turned into a fight. If GZ approached TM and grabbed him by the shirt in an aggressive manner and said something like "come here the police want to talk to you" then I dont blame TM for punching GZ in the face. What this comes down to is who was the first initial aggressor that led to the killing of an innocent man. GZ was the harassing party. 

 

I would really like Stefan to reconcile GZ's actions with UPB. Furthermore I want to know if it is justifiable for a man to follow a women, who he does not know, home at night in the rain and then kill this women if she were to defend herself with a taser. We know from the phone call that GZ was not letting his intentions be known at all to TM.

 

I really enjoy all of Stefan's work and appreciate his determination and consistency. I hope he retouches this issue.  

[PatrickC]

In terms of UPB, can you be more clear about what you consider is the moral theory we are testing? For example, perhaps:

 

'Does following a stranger violate UPB?'

 

This is the closest theory I can test, based on what you've written so far, but perhaps I'm missing something more.

[Wesley]

I have no idea about his past guilt with the Trayvon Martin thing.

 

I do know that he was acquitted.

 

I do know that he is probably the most hated person in America.

 

I do know that he has only a couple bucks to his name.

 

I do know that he is 2.5 million dollars in debt, mostly in attorney fees for a case in which he was acquitted.

 

I know he was almost dependent on living with this woman who was telling him to move out.

 

I know that if I was in that situation I would be incredibly distraught and helpless and see no way out.

 

Obviously, what he did was not ok, but if because of the state you lost over a year of time, all of your money, all potential future money you could possibly earn, all of your friends and family, and you are one of the most known and most hated people in the country it makes sense that he at least wouldn't be acting the most rationally.

 

We know that he was acquitted, and we also know that his life is so messed up now that it may have been better if he was in jail for the rest of his life. Whether he was guilty or not, he still loses.

[sg909]

OJ Simpson was acquitted as well. 

 

Even in a free society he would face the same repercussions, if people hate him which they do then doing business with someone like him could affect public image.

 

I was listening to a video Stefan put on youtube yesterday and from what I understand UPB can not be used to justify or vilify force, which is a shame because issues like this are why people call for state intervention.

 

The questions I asked above have still not been addressed and I left a lengthy article on how I saw the GZ case as it related to the non-aggression principal... no responses just a down vote.

[PatrickC]

With respect, you have not answered my UPB question.

[sg909]

'keeping an eye on someone against their will' 

 

If that is testable, I think that most clearly embodies what was going on that night that I have a problem with.

or following someone against their will

[PatrickC]

But how would someone know that?

[sg909]

If someone demonstrated they were pursuing someone even after that person consciously ran from them. If that scenario is testable I would love to see it demonstrated. I put together a demonstration in the topic head:If it is OK for a man to follow another man in a room then both men will follow each other there by failing to follow one another. However if it is ok for a man minding his own business to walk away from another man, or interact with them if the interaction is agreeable, then I feel this is universally logical as I understand it. 

 

I am also aware that UPB might not be able to test complex events but rather broad human behavior. Either way I think this case still can be boiled down to violation of the non-aggression principal by GZ.

[Magnus]

No one objectively knows who initiated aggression when these two men confronted each other

 

Then he cannot be considered guilty. 

 

"Guilt" is justification for violence -- it authorizes the extraction of restitution from someone, or locking them away as a preventative measure against future expected aggression. 

 

Guilt must be proven.  There cannot be any reasonably plausible scenarios of the event in question, derived from evidence, whereby the accused is not guilty.  The guilty scenario must be the only one that can be derived by reason from the evidence. 

 

You have already concluded that "no one knows" who the aggressor was.  Following a person at such a distance that you lose sight of him is not grounds for defensive violence.  It's certainly suspicious, but not in itself a justification for using violence several minutes later. 

 

Since "no one knows," then one of the reasonable scenarios, based on the limited evidence available, is that TM was the aggressor.  Thus, GZ is not conclusively guilty. 

[PatrickC]

I am also aware that UPB might not be able to test complex events but rather broad human behavior. Either way I think this case still can be boiled down to violation of the non-aggression principal by GZ.

 

With respect, you don't get to pick and choose UPB as it pleases you. Either the test confirms UPB or violates it. Clearly following a person does not violate UPB. If it were then I would be assaulted every day on my way to the tube station each morning for following my fellow commuters.

 

Magnus explanation highlights the point rather well about guilt having to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To do it any other way would be to potentially punish innocents.

[sg909]

Magnus I can see where you are coming from. The thing is everything that GZ said happened that night you are assuming as true. For example if we look at the objective evidence then all we know is that GZ followed TM first in his car then on foot, we know that TM ran from GZ and that is all we know. To say that TM came up and assaulted GZ is to take GZ at his word. Again personally I do think it is reasonable that TM was the first to throw a punch but that could also be justified as self defense. All we know for sure is that what started the whole event was the predatory actions of GZ that night and i believe that the charge should have been manslaughter. Their is also the issue of this being an affirmative defense, that means GZ is admitting that he killed TM but he is saying he can prove he had to do it beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lays on GZ, it would lie on prosecution if he said "i did not kill him".

 

xelent, you see following someone on your way to work as the same thing as following someone slowly in a car as they walk home and then chasing them by foot when they run? lets also remember this is at night and the party being followed was not given any reasoning as to why. 

[Carl Green]

What would you tell your kids to do if someone is following them in a vehicle?

[sg909]

Would you teach your kids to follow others that do not wish to be followed? 

2 wrongs do not make a right that is what im trying to get at

[aeonicentity]

Being upset at George Zimmerman behaving violently after all this is kind of like being upset at a dog for biting a human after you beat the shit out of it. You still put it down, but you don't justify killing dogs over it.

[Carl Green]

Would you teach your kids to follow others that do not wish to be followed? 2 wrongs do not make a right that is what im trying to get at

Just 1 wrong doesn't make a right. Why didn't TM call for help?

[sg909]

A wrong is a wrong I agree. The first wrong was GZ getting out of his car to chase TM. What followed was homicide, due to the circumstances it is not murder but certainly manslaughter. His actions go to show that he has an aggressive personality.

"Why didnt he call for help?" is not an affirmative defense for homicide, it seems to be furthering speculation. If the argument is going to revolve around speculations then I am not conveying my point properly.

[Carl Green]

A wrong is a wrong I agree. The first wrong was GZ getting out of his car to chase TM. What followed was homicide, due to the circumstances it is not murder but certainly manslaughter. His actions go to show that he has an aggressive personality.

"Why didnt he call for help?" is not an affirmative defense for homicide, it seems to be furthering speculation. If the argument is going to revolve around speculations then I am not conveying my point properly.

 

Whose actions show that they have an aggressive personality?  I'd say both of theirs.

 

I wasn't attempting to defend the homicide by pointing out that TM didn't call for help.  I was only trying to point out that if he noticed someone was following him, he should have attempted to flee the follower and call someone to help.  From the evidence I've heard, that's not what he did.  I'll admit I didn't focus on minutia and follow this case too closely. Did they prove in court that TM was agressing against GZ?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I don't know what happened on the night of the killing but there's insufficient evidence to support a murder charge. It would be good if everyone would just admit the truth; you don't know what happened and you never will and you can't arrive at a valid conclusion by filling in the blanks with whatever narrative you have in your head. I doubt George even knows what happened.

This new event has little or no bearing on the original event. We do not even know what happened HERE yet everyone is just filling in the blanks based on their prejudice. 

[Magnus]

Magnus I can see where you are coming from. The thing is everything that GZ said happened that night you are assuming as true. For example if we look at the objective evidence then all we know is that GZ followed TM first in his car then on foot, we know that TM ran from GZ and that is all we know. To say that TM came up and assaulted GZ is to take GZ at his word. Again personally I do think it is reasonable that TM was the first to throw a punch but that could also be justified as self defense. All we know for sure is that what started the whole event was the predatory actions of GZ that night and i believe that the charge should have been manslaughter. Their is also the issue of this being an affirmative defense, that means GZ is admitting that he killed TM but he is saying he can prove he had to do it beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lays on GZ, it would lie on prosecution if he said "i did not kill him".

 

 

That's not correct.  The prosecution is required to disprove the claim of self-defense.  Although self-defense is an affirmative defense, a defendant does not have to prove the truth of it.  He only needs to assert a self-defense claim that is plausible -- i.e., a claim that is not refuted by conclusive evidence, or otherwise impossible or patently frivolous. 

 

Zimmerman clearly made a plausible assertion of self-defense, even if that scenario was not proven.  His self-defense claim is clearly plausible, at least, since it was supported by his own statements to the police (which were extensive -- he gave statements repeatedly, in the station and during two crime-scene walk-throughs with the police, all of which was done without an attorney), plus the corroborating forensics and the other witnesses. 

 

Once a defendant asserts a plausible claim of self-defense, the burden then falls on the State to disprove that claim, and rule it out.  The Guilty Hypothesis, as it is called, must be the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. 

 

One of the cases to read as a starting point on this area of Florida law is Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).  It's not an unusual rule in Anglo-American criminal law.

 

So, no, I'm not assuming that everything Zimmerman said is true.  But the evidence does not prove that his claim of self-defense is untrue.  Under that standard, I have to conclude that he's not proven to be guilty. 

 

Also, charging him with manslaughter would not solve the problem of the lack of evidence to rebut the self-defense claim.  Self-defense is a complete defense to all crimes against the person. 

 

And, really, it has to be.  Self-defense is the first right.  It's the origin from which all others are derived.  There's no possible way that a valid rule of ethics could be written that requires a person to allow someone to attack him.  Using force in self-defense is not merely "wrong but excusable if you can convince the authorities you had to."  It's perfectly right, just and proper.  It's the wrongfulness of the prompting attack that makes defensive force necessary.  It's as completely ethical as tying your shoelaces. 

[sg909]

Magnus you are right, I should have been more clear in explaining affirmative defense. What I believe is that GZ's self defense claim was not plausible in that following a women home at night and getting taser'd for it is not a plausible defense for me to shoot her. She has more of a right to self defense then I do because I am the aggressing party by my deliberate predatory actions. Again no one know for certain how that physical confrontation went down, eye witness testimony is subjective in nature and eyewitnesses have contradicted each other. What we do know is TM was trying to get away and GZ was not letting his intentions be known.

 

If GZ would have found a bunch of stolen belongings or tools to burglarize I dont think we are having this discussion right now. This is what GZ expected when he told the operator "these assholes always get away", when he took the risk to follow TM in a predatory manner after TM ran away from him he should also bear the responsibility of taking such risks. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can all look back at his actions that night and say they were misguided, these misguided actions set forth a chain of events that led to the death of a young man who was innocent of any violation of NAP. 

Its kind of laughable all the things you can get charged with manslaughter for. From what I understand if you set something in motion that ends with the death of someone els it is manslaughter, even if you never intended to kill anyone.

[sg909]

xelent I have been thinking about your statement that following someone is universally preferable behavior. When you follow someone on your way to work do you seek them out and make sure to deliberately follow one person? Ill assume that you do not and what you mean is you unintentionally follow people all the time. What I am talking about is deliberately following someone. If 2 people were to deliberately follow each other to work in a UPB scenario then neither would get anywhere, whereas if they were to move as they wish they may follow each other but it is unintentional in nature.

[PatrickC]

Then I think you misunderstand UPB. You are adding unknowable attributes to the following of another person.

 

Anyway, making threatening gestures is not a violation of UPB. It's certainly unpleasant behaviour that has consequences, but it's not intrinsically immoral in of itself. This behaviour would fall under the category of APA.

[sg909]

I can accept that, I'm still very new to the application of UPB. 

[Josh F]

Threatening someone is not UPB. 

 

I think the point about the video wasn't to claim Zimmerman was any kind of moral agent or good person, just that the evidence corroborates the witness accounts that Martin was shot in self defense after initiating an assault.  Forget the violent encounter for a second though, because admittedly what happened between these two men was tragic, even in its isolation.

 

The other part of the story is about the relationship between two other groups of people.  The media and the public.  The media showed that it could edit information to sound incriminating, publish it, create a public outcry, which in tern motivates politicians to reopen the case.  Thankfully mob rule didn't make its way inside the courtroom as well.  Where is the media when we need to vilify the murders caused by the state?  Only the individual can be made to seem so sinister. 

[sg909]

To be honest the majority of media I watched on the case was youtube. I know that it was all over every news station and their websites but it was just pathetic to invest time into. I think this 'mob rule' is something that needs to be examined, for example in a free society I feel the natural repercussions of being thought of as guilty will at least be as stiff as in todays society but possibly even stiffer. I mean what if an insurance company were to cover both party's? If their were enough public outrage directed at someone I could see a company appeasing the masses. 

 

Im not saying any of this is bad but it is certainly interesting to consider.