“I feel like it was all God’s plan…I do wish there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn’t have put me in a position where I would have had to take a life.”
—–George Zimmerman, shooter of Trayvon Martin, now facing charges of second degree murder, in an interview this week with Sean Hannity on Fox News
In the sage and concise words of frequent commenter and Ethics Alarms critic tgt, who brought this quote to my attention ( the idiocy of a murder defendant submitting to a televised interview was too much for me, and I could not bear to watch it):
“Whether it was murder or self defense, don’t pretend you were just a bystander in the process. You absolutely could have done other things. If you think you made the right choices, defend them. Don’t pretend they were out of your hands.”
And the ethics train wreck rolls on…
______________________________________________________
Pointer: tgt
Facts: Orlando Sentinel
Graphic: Without a Peer
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Please, have some sympathy here. Can’t you see he’s the victim of a tragedy here, and is finding life very difficult?
“I just think it’s a tragic situation,” Zimmerman told Hannity. “I hope it’s the most difficult thing I’ll ever go through in my life.”
Oh yes, he’s sorry for the slain too of course, yada yada.
Time for me to remember that no matter how obnoxious someone is, innocence or guilt is what’s important. He’s facing trial now, and I hope a fair one. I don’t have enough information to come to a safe opinion on the issue.
All true, His lawyer must have been pulling his hair out, yes, killing people is a pain. Sigh!
he lies you can tell it by body langue he out weights s tryone too.
of corse now theres only his story think he was looking to get him. his scratches was probly for fighting with trayone says it was gods way but forgets god tells us not to take another life
TV hucksters to the contrary, telling whether someone is telling the truth, especially on TV, based on body language is a fool’s game, and a Golden Rule breach. You wouldn’t want someone using pseudo-scentific garbage to judge you.
Poor,poor George. It’s all about him.
Mr. Marshall,
This just seems absolutely ridiculous. I had to go and find the video to see it for myself. His lawyer can’t be that incompetent to allow this could he? If he didn’t couldn’t he file to be released as his lawyer? Could this be part of grand scheme to insure an appeal if found guilty?
No, I think the lawyer was appalled. If a client wants to do stupid things, no lawyer can stop him.
All part of God’s plan? No wonder so many Bible thumper non-thinker religionists give theism a bad name among the thinking.
I hope Zimmerman soon retains a better pastor, at least.
God’s plan? More like Zimmerman’s plan. Free will and all that.
Could you clarify what exactly is unethical about his statement? I see stupid. I see faulty reasoning. But I don’t see the ethical failure.
The answer is accountability. It’s ducking accountability and responsibility for his own actions. God didn’t make him do it, and there were lots of ways to avoid it. Accountability is a subset of responsibility—the statement is irresponsible, and quite probably dishonest as well.
I have to disagree. For the sake of argument we’ll assume that he is innocent, because otherwise he is a murderer and the ethical issue becomes relatively black and white*. In any situation involving the justifiable use of force, it is the aggressor that determine the level of force. A person defending himself cannot reasonably kill someone that has simply shoved him. Nor can someone be reasonably expected to sit passively while being beaten. The appropriate level of force is always a response to that which the attacker brings.
So if a man, in the course of reasonable self-defense, kills another man, the onus of that responsibility is not on the defendant, but on the aggressor.
He absolutely could have done other things to avoid that situation [faulty reasoning] (though whether or not he had any obligation to do otherwise is a separate debate) and saying it as he did was undoubtedly a fool’s boon to the prosecution [stupidity]. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that George Zimmerman is innocent, I don’t see how he can reasonably be held accountable for meeting the level of force his attacker dictated.
*please bear this in mind while reading
I…don’t understand. Are you saying that he didn’t have a choice, and therefore he isn’t responsible? It seems like you’re defining his response as “appropriate” then using the definition of appropriate to defend it.
Not quite. The argument goes something like this:
1. A person who is forced by another person to do something, cannot be held responsible for what the other person forces him to do.
2. A person who kills another person in self defense is forced to do so by the other person’s actions
3. Therefore a person who is forced to kill another person in self defense cannot be held responsible for that death by virture of being “forced”
The second point also has two “sub-clauses” so to speak.
2a. If he weren’t forced to kill the other person it would then be murder
2b. Allowing the other person to kill you is not a reasonable solution
The line I used the word “appropriate” in was intended as a summation of 2a and 2b.
I see what you’re saying, and I think I need you to clarify what you mean by “responsible.”
If you mean financially responsible, or criminally responsible, or liable, or any of those technical terms, then what you say is fine and actually sums up self-defense pretty nicely.
If, however, you mean responsible in the grandest sense, then no, I’d have to disagree. Even if someone threatens you with death, in the end it is still your choice whether or not to kill them first. Granted, it’s a logical choice and many schools of thought would consider it a justified one. However, in this case, Zimmerman is trying absolve himself of even this responsibility by placing the blame on God for fashioning the situation in the first place.
I mean responsible in both senses. I included 2b as a counter the hyper-literal argument that “there is always a choice.” In the most literal sense there is the choice between killing the other person and allowing them to kill you but it is unreasonable to hold that up as a standard. If you are of one the few/small schools of thought that considers it an option (Gandhi for example), then Zimmerman made an unethical statement by claiming it was Gods choice.
If you are of the remainder, then I assert that he has made no ethical failure in choosing to see it as some act of god*.
*excluding the conclusion of murder and remembering “He absolutely could have done other things to avoid that situation [faulty reasoning] (though whether or not he had any obligation to do otherwise is a separate debate)”
I assume then, that you are in the remainder? If so, can you please lay out why precisely the choice between killing someone or letting them kill you should not be considered a choice at all? I think your argument is that it’s so illogical to put ideals and moral imperatives over self-preservation, based on your statement that it would be “unreasonable to hold people to that standard,” but before I say anything else I want to be sure.
The reason would seem self-evident. Ideals and moral imperatives obviously play a roll in some situations (1) and for some people (2) but as a general trend across a given population in a self defense situation (e.g. the situation being discussed) few if any would reasonably consider ‘allowing themselves to be killed’ an option.
Are you suggesting that the majority of Americans, would instead genuinely consider allowing their attacker to kill them?
(1) For example a common idealization in the military – if captured its better to die than give the enemy intelligence that could enable him to do harm to your forces
(2) For example Gandhi, as previously mentioned, would likely consider it a valid alternative.
Don’t walk into a lion’s den then claim self defense.