Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[seekerz]

If we consider Trayvon’s murder a hate crime then it does matter whether Zimmerman is a racist, but your point about common racial profiling is very important. There seems to be a myth that racism doesn’t exist or is justified because society has moved on to subtler prejudices. I suppose the belief in that myth comes from a failure to challenge authority, a lack of self-honesty, a lack of caring…either way, whatever precaution is justified by racial profiling, what good did it do for Trayvon?

But the act of racial profiling deteriorating to an act murder isn’t the only worry here. As I tried to explain to another poster, we’re also talking about an act of racial profiling deteriorating to the point that people of colour are made to feel uncomfortable in our public and private life – and it’s a discomfort that white people don’t put up with.

That’s the real problem: perceptions that people grow up with of what a criminal looks like; perceptions which have some people in jail when they shouldn’t be while others get a slap on the wrist for the same offence (if they get arrested at all).

What do we really think are the prospects for kids who aren’t strong, if from an early age they are treated like criminals: moving purses away (as in away from a 6 year old), shadowing them in stores, stopping their cars for no obvious reason…? I know it will take more than one lucky soul in the WH to change these pernicious attacks on self-esteem and human dignity.

 

[seekerz]

I just listened to the audio recording available at the news article’s website. The teenager is walking away when George Zimmerman gets out of his car, goes after the teenager, and eventually shoots him. This teenager did not attack Zimmerman, but quite the opposite - Zimmerman went after the teenager and attacked him.

This incident may well lead to a further escalation of street violence. People who walk on the streets will justifiably become alarmed and may shoot first and ask questions later if they see that they are being followed by someone, like the innocent and peaceful teenager was followed by George Zimmerman.

That’s not the half of it. According to the family’s lawyer, after his death Trayvon was tested for drugs/alcohol and a background check was done, but such investigations were carried out for Zimmerman.

That child’s name belongs on some protective law that will come out of this tragedy. Otherwise his death will have been in vain.

 

[scipio337]

So now this is a murder and Treyvon = Rosa Parks? This thread has left the tracks.

Florida’s self defense law IS fair, but I don’t believe it can be applied in this case, due to the fact that Zimmerman was following Treyvon.

All the Florida law states is you do not have to retreat when confronted with deadly force. This was not the case in this shooting.

I’m not sure if Zimmerman shot him on the basis of his race, but it sure looks like he engaged in predjudicial behavior.

I’m guessing some manslaughter (at least) charges ensue, but don’t believe this rises to the level of “murder”.

 

[TMC]

What is truly shocking to me is the reaction of the local police. It appears they simply took the shooter’s word that he was acting in self defense. They apparently did not canvass the neighborhood as it only came out weeks later that one of the neigbors heard the incident and called 911. They did not test the shooter for intoxicants. If they asked him in more detail exactly what happened, e.g. how he was threatened, when he decided to draw his weapon and why he decided to use it, I have not seen it reported. In nearly all jurisdictions, if a policeman shoots a civilian - even when it is clearly a justified action - the policeman surrenders his weapon, is put on leave with pay and a thorough and public investigation is conducted. Here one citizen shoots another, and the police simply send him home. The law probably needs to be adjusted, but this police force seems to me to have some real problems, as well. I suspect there is more to this story, and I don’t expect any of it to be good.

 

[Nicko]

Florida’s self defense law IS fair, but I don’t believe it can be applied in this case, due to the fact that Zimmerman was following Treyvon.

All the Florida law states is you do not have to retreat when confronted with deadly force. This was not the case in this shooting.

I’m not sure if Zimmerman shot him on the basis of his race, but it sure looks like he engaged in predjudicial behavior.

This seems a pretty fair assessment given the facts available. The clear racism - IMHO - is in the actions of the Sanford Police. Does anyone here believe that if Martin was a licensed CCW carrier and had shot Zimmerman for his illegal pursuit - a far clearer case of “Stand Your Ground” - that he would not even have been arrested?

I’m guessing some manslaughter (at least) charges ensue, but don’t believe this rises to the level of “murder”.

If some of the 911 call recordings are accurate, Zimmerman shot Martin whist he was pleading for his life.

I do not think that Zimmerman pursued Martin with the premeditated intent to kill him. It is therefore not First Degree Murder. I think, however, he should be faced with a charge of Second Degree Murder.

Although there was probably no premeditation, Zimmerman would have a hard time convincing an impartial jury that there was no intent.

 

[Nicko]

What is truly shocking to me is the reaction of the local police. It appears they simply took the shooter’s word that he was acting in self defense.

I’m pretty much the same here.

In order to claim self-defence, one must admit to actions that would be a crime if not for mitigating circumstances. It is then one’s obligation to demonstrate that one reasonably believed those mitigating circumstances existed.

Zimmerman had a CCW permit and had completed a law-enforcement training programme. He cannot claim ignorance on this. He should have been fully aware of the law, even if the dispatcher had not warned him off.

It is difficult to imagine a non-racial explanation for the police inaction. Perhaps frontal lobotomies are mandatory for all officers in the Sanford Police Department? Do new officers have to swear on a stack of Bibles that they will under no circumstances learn any of the laws they are paid to enforce? Is the department just covering their collective buttocks on behalf of one bad officer?

 

[Dale_M]

So now this is a murder and Treyvon = Rosa Parks? This thread has left the tracks.

hmm… I’m not sure that the thread has left the tracks, although certainly we can discuss those two objections you raised.

Comparing Trayvon Martin to Rosa Parks is understandable, although perhaps not the most accurate comparison. Ms. Parks chose her course of action, knowing it would lead to her arrest and trial. Mr. Martin was blind-sided by events. However, both Parks and Martin can be considered martyrs and both their cases grabbed the attention of the US, forcing an uncomfortable discussion of race and justice.

As far as murder vs. manslaughter, I dunno. I am not a lawyer, but looked up the Florida legal code. It appears this might be a case of manslaughter, since it premeditation seems unlikely and I don’t think the killing happened during the commission of another felony.
flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/Chapter782/All

Certainly from a judicial point of view distinguishing between murder and manslaughter is important. But when the general public is discussing the case, does the distinction really matter? In common parlance, isn’t “murder” normally considered a synonym for “killing a human being”?

 

[Nicko]

Certainly from a judicial point of view distinguishing between murder and manslaughter is important. But when the general public is discussing the case, does the distinction really matter? In common parlance, isn’t “murder” normally considered a synonym for “killing a human being”?

The distinction is based on intent. Intent is shown by predictable consequences of one’s actions.

The predictable consequence of Zimmerman shooting Martin was that Martin would die.

Unless Zimmerman can show that he reasonably believed that Martin posed a threat to his life, at that time, it’s murder.

 

[seekerz]

The distinction is based on intent. Intent is shown by predictable consequences of one’s actions.

The predictable consequence of Zimmerman shooting Martin was that Martin would die.

Unless Zimmerman can show that he reasonably believed that Martin posed a threat to his life, at that time, it’s murder.

Zimmerman needs to be arrested. The details (murder vs manslaughter) can be sorted out after that. Far as I’m concerned, he’s a threat to the public.

 

[sw85]

What in the world does this case have to do with this law? Obviously this wasn’t self-defense – going out of your way to involve yourself in something like this isn’t self-defense, and it’s not as if he was defending someone else, either. So in what sense does a law offering leeway for self-defenders relate to a man who actively pursues criminals contrary to the advice of those in authority who tell him not to?

Sounds like media eggheads trying to use this to dredge up opposition to an irrelevant law they happen not to like. That, or lazy police officers abusing a law so as to escape the necessity of lengthy investigations and paperwork.

 

[Nicko]

Sounds like media eggheads trying to use this to dredge up opposition to an irrelevant law they happen not to like.

Whilst I do believe that the law could stand some amendments that explicitly point out that it is removing the duty to retreat, not granting the right to pursue, you are correct that “Stand Your Ground” should be irrelevant in this case.

 

[seekerz]

So in what sense does a law offering leeway for self-defenders relate to a man who actively pursues criminals contrary to the advice of those in authority who tell him not to?.

Was there a criminal in this story? If so, who?

 

[Seamus_L]

Some people are trying to turn this into a racial incident, when Zimmerman himself appears to be of mixed race. My guess is he’s a dellusional individual who saw himself as the new sherriff in town bringing law and order to Dodge City, I fully expect that he will be charged with shooting Martin. As for racial profiling, it’s a two way street, but you seldom hear how much police attention a white man in an all black park or neighborhood can draw.

 

[seekerz]

Some people are trying to turn this into a racial incident, when Zimmerman himself appears to be of mixed race. My guess is he’s a dellusional individual who saw himself as the new sherriff in town bringing law and order to Dodge City, I fully expect that he will be charged with shooting Martin. As for racial profiling, it’s a two way street, but you seldom hear how much police attention a white man in an all black park or neighborhood can draw.

This does not have to be turned into a racial incident - it very obviously involved race. Even people of the same race can engage in racism, for example if they have an inferiority or superiority complex.

As to profiling: I’m sure white men visit “all black” parks or neighborhoods all the time: to make a living, to get an education, to shop, worship or exercise…pretty sure they have no choice but to walk around with a potential target on their backs 24/7 and that their loved ones can only sleep peacefully at nights when they hear them come in and shut the door.

 

[bellasbane]

On a tape of one of Zimmerman’s 911 calls the night of the shooting, he is heard saying under his breath what sounds like “f**ing coons.” Seconds later he confronted Martin and after a brief scuffle shot him dead.

abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309#.T2njm8VwaVG

I listened to the audio (there is a link to it on the website) and it’s hard to be sure if that’s what Zimmerman says. He could be saying “punks”. However, if he does use the racial slur right before pulling the trigger than racism is certainly a motive.

 

[seekerz]

I listened to the audio (there is a link to it on the website) and it’s hard to be sure if that’s what Zimmerman says. He could be saying “punks”. However, if he does use the racial slur right before pulling the trigger than racism is certainly a motive.

Even without the slur, it’s pretty obvious that race was a factor in him fixating on the child to begin with. Whether it was a racist incident or simply one that involved racial profiling, is another question. In my mind, either would be reprehensible.

 

[bellasbane]

Even without the slur, it’s pretty obvious that race was a factor in him fixating on the child to begin with. Whether it was a racist incident or simply one that involved racial profiling, is another question. In my mind, either would be reprehensible.

Yeah. It’s been 145 years since laws were passed to end slavery and African-Americans are still regarded as sub-human in the eyes of some people.

However, if it is a hate crime I think that they can charge him with murder.

 

[Bezant]

Whilst I do believe that the law could stand some amendments that explicitly point out that it is removing the duty to retreat, not granting the right to pursue, you are correct that “Stand Your Ground” should be irrelevant in this case.

Yes.

 

[Dale_M]

However, if it is a hate crime I think that they can charge him with murder.

I’m not sure of the specifics of criminal charges, but you make a good point. Under Florida law, a second degree felony (such as manslaughter) becomes a first degree felony if the motivation was hate.
leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=775.085&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.085.html

 

[TMC]

What in the world does this case have to do with this law? Obviously this wasn’t self-defense – going out of your way to involve yourself in something like this isn’t self-defense, and it’s not as if he was defending someone else, either. So in what sense does a law offering leeway for self-defenders relate to a man who actively pursues criminals contrary to the advice of those in authority who tell him not to?

Sounds like media eggheads trying to use this to dredge up opposition to an irrelevant law they happen not to like. That, or lazy police officers abusing a law so as to escape the necessity of lengthy investigations and paperwork.

The reason the law has come into the conversation is because it is different than most self defense laws. In most states, even if you feel threatened you first have a duty to retreat to avoid the confrontation, if you cannot retreat you then have a duty to use the least amount of force possible. Florida’s law explicitly rejects the duty to retreat - which is why its called a “stand your ground” law. And, according to some at least, the law also implicitly rejects the duty to use minimal force.