I tried posting this last night as a vanity but it didn’t get through so I’ll try posting in an existing thread. I’m not trying to start anything or troll. Basically, I’m pretty baffled by many FReepers’ reactions to the Zimmerman/Martin case so I wanted to hear people’s opinions on the following entirely hypothetical scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with recent events:
This is a circumstantial case that basically comes down to whom FReepers are most willing to give the benefit of the doubt to:
Character A: Violent criminal record; history of overreacting; armed
Character Z (by which of course I mean zed): No criminal record; suspended for tardiness; Skittles
A is “patrolling” the neighborhood in his car. Z is returning to his father’s house (in which he does not usually reside) from the local gas station because he wanted candy during the NBA All Star Game half time break (yeah, I know, who watches the NBA All Star game, or any All Star game for that matter? but still...).
A follows Z in his car because he suspects him of wrongdoing. The only reasons that A suspects Z of wrongdoing is that Z is wearing a hoodie. A, subsequently exits his car and proceeds to follow Z on foot, despite the 911 operator’s instruction that A “doesn’t need to do that”.
Police officers arrive on the scene to find that Z is dead of a bullet wound to the chest caused by A’s weapon. A has grass stains on his back and a bloody nose which he claims he received in a fight initiated by Z. A claims that he shot Z in self defense.
Putting aside any considerations of race/politics for a minute,
1) Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for Z’s death?
2) Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for Z’s death?
3) What is the obligation of the local police force in investigating this incident?
You could easily get a job over at MSNBC.
I am baffled, too. But I'm also baffled by how many people repeat things that are factually untrue about the case, then draw conclusions. Some of these facts are important, others probably not. I'm going to offer a few corrections to your "hypothetical" below.
This is a circumstantial case that basically comes down to whom FReepers are most willing to give the benefit of the doubt to:
Character A: Violent criminal record; history of overreacting; armed
Character Z (by which of course I mean zed): No criminal record; suspended for tardiness; Skittles
Actually, that is not the choice at all. Character Z has no story. He is dead. We only have Character A's version (at least the small parts of it that the police have told us) and the various eyewitness accounts and audio recordings. Our decision is whether all of this adds up to evidence of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."
A is “patrolling” the neighborhood in his car.
The police report states that Zimmerman was out running a personal errand, not "patrolling."
Z is returning to his father’s house (in which he does not usually reside) from the local gas station because he wanted candy during the NBA All Star Game half time break (yeah, I know, who watches the NBA All Star game, or any All Star game for that matter? but still...).
Here's one of those little things that keeps getting repeated. He was not watching the NBA All-Star Game. Tip-off was at 7:37 PM - seven minutes after "Z" was pronounced dead. Is that important? Nope. But it is a fact.
A follows Z in his car because he suspects him of wrongdoing.
No, he stopped his car, and then he got out of it. We hear this on the recording.
The only reasons that A suspects Z of wrongdoing is that Z is wearing a hoodie.
No. He stated that the individual was acting suspiciously, loitering in the rain. It is worth noting, I think, that police have been called to the neighborhood 402 times in the last year. 46 of those calls were from Zimmerman. Police have investigated at least 9 burglaries in the neighborhood in the last year. (I'm still not clear on the "history of over-reaction" statement above, so I thought I'd put Zimmerman's frequent calls to police into perspective a little bit.)
A, subsequently exits his car and proceeds to follow Z on foot, despite the 911 operator’s instruction that A “doesn’t need to do that”.
This is the most commonly mischaracterized part of the evening. First, Zimmerman did not call 911. He called the Sanford Police non-emergency number. When the operator said "we don't need you to do that" (follow Martin,) Zimmerman responds "okay." He remains on the phone for nearly two more minutes, during which he states that he no longer sees "this kid" and does not know where he went. Go listen to it yourself.
Police officers arrive on the scene to find that Z is dead of a bullet wound to the chest caused by A’s weapon. A has grass stains on his back and a bloody nose which he claims he received in a fight initiated by Z. A claims that he shot Z in self defense.
I think you are skipping a few things. Several eyewitnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. So it is not really a matter of "A claims" he was injured in the fight. This is pretty important, since you are asking people whether they should give A the "benefit of the doubt." Corroborating testimony tends to bolster the case for granting that benefit.
Putting aside any considerations of race/politics for a minute,
I'm afraid that horse has left the barn...
1) Who, if anyone, is morally responsible for Z’s death?
Well, that's not the question we started with, is it? Clearly, Zimmerman is morally responsible for the death. Which does not, on its face, mean he acted immorally. That's a different question.
2) Who, if anyone, is legally responsible for Z’s death?
Zimmerman, by his own admission. But the question is whether his act was illegal, or criminal. And perhaps whether he is civilly liable. We already know that he killed him.
3) What is the obligation of the local police force in investigating this incident?
I would certainly expect them to have roped off the scene, collected physical evidence, confiscated the gun, taken Zimmerman into custody for questioning, tried to revive Martin and canvass the neighborhood taking statements from all witnesses. And guess what? They did all those things. So what are you really asking?