It really boggles my mind how anyone could ever think that shooting an unarmed man on a public sidewalk could ever be considered self defense. Especially since, by the available evidence, the shooter approached the man and provoked him, most likely, based on the derogatory language he used, just because he didn’t like the young man’s skin color.
It allows citizens to use deadly force against other citizens in situations that could be defused either by walking away or by using lesser means. That should be offensive to anyone.
I never said it did. But it does allow one to use deadly force when retreat or use of less force would be sufficient.
How does it have nothing to do with profiling? Another Neighborhood Watch member was on TV last night talking about an alleged crime spree by young black males in the area in an obvious attempt to excuse Zimmerman’s actions.
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.
How does that apply in this case? How?
Really? It was certainly relevant when law enforcement decided Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Even if Zimmerman can claim self-defense – he’s legally justified in using deadly force despite the non-lethal options–and even outside his home?
You do realise that this can mean more than a criminal case? It has to do with the fact that race mattered in Orange County, race had to do with the shooting, and likely the way this shoddy investigation was handled.
Which proves to me that they are both nut cases. Anyone with any intelligence would not be talking to the press.
Please quote the part of the law that allows a person to chase down an unarmed man, pick a fight with him and shoot him.
It applies because that is the defense that the shooter is offering - that he had no obligation to retreat and that he was justified in using the degree of force he found to be reasonable. It is the reason the police gave for not arresting him, so apparently they also believed it applies to this case.
Just because he wasn’t arrested doesn’t mean that the SA isn’t examing it and an arrest and arraignment won’t come. He can also still be sued in civil court for wrongful death, particularly if there were recorded racial epithets used during his 911 call. And, organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center could move to have him tried criminally in federal court for infringing on the victim’s civil rights.
I am not a fan of "hate crime’ laws and I think that what was done here was a crime regardless of what the shooter thought of young black men. But the “crime spree” reports are nonetheless troubling. The alleged crime spree was a spate of burglaries. So if none of the alleged burglars were caught, how exactly does the Neighborhood Watch know that they were all young black men?
Not knowing the law is not an excuse. These cops clearly do not know the law, or possibly in this case just didn’t care, and Zimmerman approached this young man with an intent to kill. The fact that he screamed self defense after he murdered this young man in cold blood is no excuse. Of course he’s trying to justify what he did…I doubt he wants to spend the rest of his life in prison. Enforce the laws and they work, if nobody enforces them they are just words on a piece of paper. Changing them makes no difference if they are not enforced.
Who says we’re only talking about Zimmerman rights? You don’t think it’s problematic that anyone is allowed to use deadly force when he believes he’s in danger, even he has safer non-lethal options of self defence?
But the important word there is law-abiding. That presumes that the government only allows ownership to responsible citizens. Nevertheless, sometimes even under regulation irresponsible hands can find arms; Zimmerman had a prior arrest in 2005 that almost precluded him from ownership. But even citizens who are ‘responsible’ owners as far as the government is concerned, can make irresponsible decisions in a combative situation.
Who says we’re only talking about Zimmerman’s rights? You don’t think it’s problematic that anyone is allowed to use deadly force when he believes he’s in danger, even he has safer non-lethal options of self defence? You don’t think it’s problematic that the police must effectively make a judgement about self-defence in order to make an arrest? The issue isn’t only about the law here, but what the law allows the law enforcement to do.
But the important word there is law-abiding. That presumes the government only allows ownership to responsible citizens. Nevertheless, sometimes even under regulation irresponsible hands can find arms; Zimmerman had a prior arrest in 2005 that almost precluded him from ownership. But even citizens who are ‘responsible’ owners as far as the government is concerned, can make irresponsible decisions in a combative situation.
So if there had been such a crime spree he would have been justified in stopping Martin? Absolutely not.
Strange how an acquired right (gun ownership) takes precedence over a basic right (right to continue breathing while doing absolutely nothing wrong)
