Strong opinions about Trayvon Martin's murder

[Bucky]

57. Most of the above.

1) Yes, I think race is a major driver here. Most Republicans in their guts, even if they don't think Trayvon was guilty of anything, are able to rationalize it with thoughts like "Well, he could have been up to something... the kid was a pothead after all... and he did attack Zimmerman." This sort of half-thinking would be less of a temptation if Trayvon Martin had been white.

On the flip side, I think many Democrats are inclined to see Republicans as being driven by pure racism on this issue. I think their motives are more nuanced than that; even if race is playing a role in this, it's not the only factor driving opinions in the case. I think from the gitgo, most people's initial reactions--pro and anti-Zimmerman--were responding to racial sympathies.

2) The second big factor in this is guns, and the gun-supporting laws of Florida like "Stand Your Ground." To wit: Zimmerman supporters immediately pounce on the fact that, as it appears now, Martin was the one who initiated actual the physical confrontation. Zimmerman, by that logic, was very much standing his ground.

Only it wasn't his ground to stand. Trayvon Martin was being followed on a mostly empty street at night. Before he could attack anybody, Zimmerman had to get out of his car. In other words, it was Trayvon Martin who was standing his ground. The guy who followed Martin and then provoked the confrontation by getting out of his car logically can't then claim self defense. That makes no more sense than his claim that he was defending his home from several blocks away.

If this is his case, then him getting out of his car without his gun makes no sense at all. So this case is probably going to hinge on where the gun was before the altercation started.

3) This case is really about a guy shooting another guy--and does this case involve murder, manslaughter, or justified homocide. I don't think there's a case for murder here, frankly--or at least not first degree murder. Standards change from state to state. But this is certainly not a justifiable shooting. The three possible justifications are (a) home defense, (b) stand your ground defense, and (c) self defense.

The first two do not apply here. Zimmerman was no where near his home. The 911 operator had told him not to follow Martin, meaning he hand no right to create the "grounds" for confrontation with the teenager. The only remaining argument he has is that, once the confrontation started with Trayvon Martin, he had a right a to protect himself. But there's a big problem with that. In two ways, George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. First, he followed Trayvon in his car, while Trayvon was on foot. This created a reason and a situation for Martin to be fearful.

Second, George Zimmerman then stopped the car and got out of the car to somehow engage Martin, thereby creating the confrontation. Unless we're to believe that an unarmed teenager on foot attacked the car, it could only have been Zimmerman who created this confrontation. He was in pursuit. Any claim that he was only defending himself is absurd.

I don't doubt that, when he actually pulled the trigger, Zimmerman was fearing for his safety. But this fear was the result of tracking down and confronting someone. These were choices that he made, that he, legally speaking, meditated on beforehand. I don't think this was premeditated homocide (had it been planned out as an armed confrontation, Trayvon wouldn't have gotten so close or ended up on top of Zimmerman), but the confrontation was the result of Zimmerman planning something and carring out this plan against the directives of legal authorities. Depending on state standards this might be manslaughter or a lesser class of murder.