“If anyone would like to present an argument, or arguments, that changes my conclusion regarding GZ’s moral sine qua non in the current legal case, I’ll gladly contribute $25,000 to his defense fund before the end of this week.”
So says analyst1961.
Apparently that comment has caused quite a stir.
With further commenting happening on later open threads on Nettles blog regarding the matter.
So let’s look at the entire comment(my bold):
I have not contributed to the GZ legal defense fund, which might surprise those who have perused my comments. I think – while completely legal to the best of my analysis – GZ’s decision to get out of the truck with a handgun was a serious moral failure. I also have substantive doubt regarding his claim of looking for an address; I think GZ wanted to be part of the action. I could be wrong, but that element of the story may be indeterminable. That TM got to him before he could get back to his truck after looking for an address seems too convenient from my perspective. Ethically, in my opinion – knowing the police were en route – his job was done after the NEN call. Ergo, I have no compassion for GZ regarding his actions on the night of the shooting, nor the impetus to donate any monies.
Moving forward from that night to the events of the present day, do I think he is the victim of a political and racially-fueled prosecution? Clearly. Do I think he should strike down upon these rat-bastards with great vengeance and furious anger? Hell yes. So, as far as restitution from this seemingly illegal prosecution and the myriad libels and slanders by media and individuals, I’d gladly contribute. However, these cases – and I predict they will be numerous – will be (and already are) handled on a contingency bases by very willing and very capable law firms, and he will not need my funds for that.
If anyone would like to present an argument, or arguments, that changes my conclusion regarding GZ’s moral sine qua non in the current legal case, I’ll gladly contribute $25,000 to his defense fund before the end of this week.
Well I would like to get the defense $25,000 but considering I do not have $25,000 I will have to take the challenge.
Here’s problem number 1. “serious moral failure”
Those three words stung together like that make no sense to me. Regardless, judging by the context of what analyst1961 says, and I hope he’ll correct me if I am wrong, it is that George is in part responsible for the death of Trayvon because of George’s action(s) to put himself into a position of potential danger. This is why analyst1961 has no compassion for GZ, George did it to himself, at least partially.
So there are many ways to attempt to get the defense the $25,000, some like Mike McDaniel and ackbarsays have tried but apparently have failed, as will I I assume, lol.
Let me offer this. In one way what analyst1961 is doing is blaming the victim. Yes, George is the victim. There is no justification for assaulting George. If you can provide me evidence that George “took him down” like Bernie lies about then you would have a justified response on the part of Trayvon but that evidence does not exist. Let us make no mistake on who the perpetrator is here. Trayvon had more than one chance to discontinue his assault. He could have stopped when George tried to get away. He could have stopped when George was screaming. He could have stopped when George tried to extricate himself from the clearly dominating position Trayvon had him in which W6 witnessed. He could have stopped when W6 yelled he was calling police. Despite all of that and clearly winning Trayvon never stopped. Trayvon was the one who did it to himself.
I could try other attempts but that should be a good start however I could go into technical details such as there is no evidence that exists that tells us Trayvon even knew George got out of the truck when he ran. From Trayvons perspective all he saw was some guy sitting in a truck he thought was watching him and later saw the same guy walking down the sidewalk. This justifies what Trayvon did? Not at all. This was a wrong George committed? I fail to see how. I could also say that George said he had his truck lights shining down the direction of the T and could clearly see Trayvon was out of the area only to lose sight of him behind the buildings, no doubt before he even got to walking, and considering his past experience with people getting away figured he got away and at that time felt he was not putting himself into a position of danger.
How about a counter offer. If analyst1961 can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that George committed a serious moral failure, clarifying serious moral failure of course, then I’ll give an e-cake offering to analyst1961 in a blog telling the world of his greatness over mine. But if he can’t or I convince him, not merely from this post but by any future interaction, then the $25,000 from analyst1961 goes to the defense fund.
As one can see from the comments below me and analyst1961 have had some back and forth. I think despite the nature of the comment section it is going well. However at the pace we’re going the trial may be over before we come to any conclusion. As it stands right now all I really know within that line of thoughts we had in the comment section is that any “thing” beyond the call to police is wrong. The truck thing appears to be just a way of saying that. In other words then, George positioned himself from point A to point B. And this action put himself and others in danger. I find this unsatisfactory to say the least. We know where point A approximately is and we know where point B approximately is. Looking at a map I fail to see how moving from point A to point B is a danger to anyone. Again, I’m not trying to be an ass here, there clearly must be more to it than merely moving from point A to point B. And for that I will have to wait for analyst1961’s response.
Enjoy. Examine. Find the Truth.