Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[Rich_Olszewski]

Wrong again.

Again?

There ALWAYS must be a reasonable threat of serious bodily harm or death present in order to justify lethal force.

Okay, how does one prove reasonable threat absent a witness? In Florida, incidentally.

 

[bellasbane]

Are you talking about profiles built on ethnic group or profiles built from data that includes ethnic group? The first is wrong [morally and scientifically], the second is not.

Police crime data is racially biased, BECAUSE of racial profiling. Therefore, any racial or ethnic finding from that souce cannot be trusted and is likely spurious.

There was a lot of law breaking going on in the fraternities at my old Ivy League Alma mater (drug use, theft, vandalism, drunk driving) - but the police rarely got called and when they did - nobody was ever arrested.

As far as I can tell, those fraternity boys were no better than a bunch of gang bangers (they even had their own “secret” signs & symbols). The only difference was that they came from white upper class families.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Again?

Okay, how does one prove reasonable threat absent a witness? In Florida, incidentally.

I apologize for the use of the word again. I was applying it more to those who are arguing that the law needs to be changed in light of this incident.

Proof isn’t needed in this case, the shooter claimed that the young man attacked him, only after the man approached and harrassed him on a public side walk, he never had any weapon or had attacked him in any way until the man provoked him. Per the 911 call and the victim’s girlfriend, the shooter chased down the young man, attacked him, then shot him. There is no law ANYWHERE that justifies this. As I said, it’s not a “chase down, assault, and execute” law. Manslaughter or possibly murder charges should be the result.

In any other case, there must be some sort of evidence that the person acting in self defense using deadly force feared for their life. In most cases the presence of a potentially deadly weapon is the qualifier (a gun, baseball bat, knife, ect.) This applies to anyone with a firearm, police officers, federal agents, citizens with carry permits, anyone using a firearm in a civilian setting is bound by laws justifying when lethal force is allowed and when it is not. This isn’t a nuanced part of the law, any lawyer or police officer can explain it to you. Rarely in any crime situation is there ABSOLUTE unquestionable proof that something happened.

In Florida, and in most states, the law does not require you to attempt to escape if you are threatened with deadly force, you are allowed to stand up to the predator and defend yourself and those nearby using deadly force in turn.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I don’t even think it matters whether Zimmerman was racist or not. Heaven knows, that lot will be with us always. The real problem is profiling based on what a person looks like. It is practiced even by people who are not racist and it’s dangerous. How many innocent kids need to die for us to deal with that simple fact?

Tonight I know many mothers, myself included, are going to sleep with a frown on their hearts. Until enough parents see their sons in Trayvon’s face, nothing is ever going to change.

We all profile whether we admit it or not, its how our brain works. Luckily, we can make a conscious decision on what we do with the information that our brain gives us during and after the subconscious sorting process that the brain does with everything that enters it. This knucklehead Zimmerman appears to have gone out looking for trouble. He has admitted the shooting and has already indicated his defense. I hope the state prosecutor presses charges.

 

[Bezant]

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.

Seamus,

Race matters for this incident – regardless if it makes you uncomfortable, if you dismiss it, if you complain about your perceived “double-standard.”

But if you–or anyone else for that matter–really see Zimmerman as nothing more than a mad, narcissitic vigilante, and if you really think that race isn’t relevant here–you’re entitled to be wrong.

By the way, people of colour can be prejudiced towards each other.

 

[ringil]

This guy needs to face manslaughter charges at least.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I apologize for the use of the word again. I was applying it more to those who are arguing that the law needs to be changed in light of this incident.

Okay.

This isn’t a nuanced part of the law, any lawyer or police officer can explain it to you.

As one of the former, I shall explain it to myself.

 

[Bezant]

This has nothing to do with profiling. The guy is a nut case.

I can pretty much guarantee that in a few days his neighbors will be grabbing their 15 minutes of fame talking about how they just knew he would do something like this.

It isn’t going to matter how many people you put in jail, there will always be nut cases out and about in our world.

With all due respect, but why are you, and other posters, keen to play colour-blind in a case where race is clearly relevant? It’s almost though “race” is a dirty word.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Okay.

As one of the former, I shall explain it to myself.

As a lawyer, would you mind explaining how the situation applies to the “stand your ground” law?

 

[FromTheAshes777]

With all due respect, but why are you, and other posters, keen to play colour-blind in a case where race is clearly relevant? It’s almost though “race” is a dirty word.

I personally believe the man probably is racist and that was what motivated him to confront and attack, and eventually shoot the young man. The man was also probably a little crazy to boot though, and that was what brought out the illegal deadly force in the situation.

 

[TMC]

The current FL law allows no such thing. This shooting in particular isn’t covered by this law.

That is how I read it. Here is the text of the law, what do I have wrong?

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The repeal of the common law duty to retreat is explicit in the first clause. I agree that the degree of force allowed is somewhat ambiguous, but because it is not limited to objectively reasonable force, but to what the person subjectively views as reasonable, most are taking that as an implicit repeal of the common law limit on use of force.

 

[seekerz]

Are you talking about profiles built on ethnic group or profiles built from data that includes ethnic group? The first is wrong [morally and scientifically], the second is not.

I’m talking about whatever causes people (particularly those in authority) to apply negative group attributes (data supported or not) to individuals, and to take actions towards such individuals that are based on those assumptions.

In other words, even if the data purports to show that most tall joggers have started beating their wives, it is wrong to stop an individual tall man jogging on the street on the suspicion that he may have just beaten his wife. If he fits the description of a particular assailant, that’s another matter - he’s still not automatically guilty, but he can be reasonably stopped for questioning.

 

[TMC]

Fortunately there is no state or country that has a law that allows this. If you really think that Florida law makes this legal then you really need to check your facts, and stop insulting people from this state.

I am not trying to insult the citizens of Florida, but the citizens of Florida should be offended that they have this law on the books.

 

[scipio337]

I am not trying to insult the citizens of Florida, but the citizens of Florida should be offended that they have this law on the books.

Why should they be offended by this law?

This law didn’t allow someone to follow someone and shoot them. I (and apparently others) have no idea how how came to this deduction.

 

[seekerz]

We all profile whether we admit it or not, its how our brain works. Luckily, we can make a conscious decision on what we do with the information that our brain gives us during and after the subconscious sorting process that the brain does with everything that enters it. This knucklehead Zimmerman appears to have gone out looking for trouble. He has admitted the shooting and has already indicated his defense. I hope the state prosecutor presses charges.

As long as the profiling stays in our brains and doesn’t get acted on, that’s fine. The profiling I’m talking about is acting on zero evidence of wrongdoing because ‘your brain’ tells you here’s a wrongdoer!

 

[scipio337]

That is how I read it. Here is the text of the law, what do I have wrong?

The repeal of the common law duty to retreat is explicit in the first clause. I agree that the degree of force allowed is somewhat ambiguous, but because it is not limited to objectively reasonable force, but to what the person subjectively views as reasonable, most are taking that as an implicit repeal of the common law limit on use of force.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So this states it is lawful to pursue a fleeing person and use deadly force? No.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

The answer is that you have to retreat if you reasonably can. And you have to use the least deadly means necessary if you cannot retreat. It is simple thing to think up hard cases where it is not clear what is reasonable. That is what judges and juries are for. But under current FL law, a grown man can shoot an unarmed teen and call it justified because there is no requirement that he even try to avoid the conflict or that he use only reasonable force.

Sigh… as I said before, the law does not allow someone to use deadly force in a situation where there is no threat of deadly force present. Explain to me how the text of the law allows this. It clearly does not.

“Stand your ground”, does not = “chase down, harrass for being black, fist fight, and shoot”.

You cannot run after someone, provoke them to fight, and then say you were defending yourself or another person…that’s just ridiculous. This law doesn’t allow anyone to do that.

 

[seekerz]

Why should they be offended by this law?

This law didn’t allow someone to follow someone and shoot them. I (and apparently others) have no idea how how came to this deduction.

For what it’s worth, there was a judge on one of those sensationalist TV ‘news’ shows yesterday, who thinks FL self-defense law does apply.

 

[maryjk]

For what it’s worth, there was a judge on one of those sensationalist TV ‘news’ shows yesterday, who thinks FL self-defense law does apply.

There may be a reason that the judge is on a sensationalist TV show instead of on an actual bench.

 

[seekerz]

It’s almost though “race” is a dirty word.

Oh, but it is for many people. As long as we can focus on the technical details and not open that smell diaper, things will be just fine. We can all just get along until your brother or mine feels like a pack of skittles on a rainy night…