Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[EasterJoy]

What seems to get lost in the noise is that the matter would have been closed, had there been no public outcry.

I think if there had been no public outcry over this, there would have been in another case, because regardless of what the police does, the judges will have to follow the letter of the law, because the law gives permission to use deadly force in situations when deadly force could have been avoided.

I think the lawmakers did not appreciate when they made it that this law was inevitably going to lead to deaths that the public was going to have a hard time stomaching.

 

[SouthCatholic]

Everybody who can publish a webpage has an opinion and a gotcha of someone in this case. The fact remains that all the basis we have in the call for suspicion of Trayvon, resided in Zimmerman’s head. **The kid was doing wrong when the report was called **and not even Zimmerman’s dad or brother have offered one indication to the contrary. I would imagine that they speak for him, no?

Correction! Zimmerman CLAIMS Trayvon Martin was doing wrong when he called in the report. Unfortunately, the only other person who really knows what happened is DEAD!

 

[SouthCatholic]

I support the right to carry, and this self-protection law. One case, even if Martin was innocent, and it’s becoming more apparent that he was NOT, the answer is to prosecute any person who uses this law to cover his own transgression. I imagine that many lives have been saved b/c the fear of God has been put into potentially homicidal criminals. :coffeeread: Rob

What evidence do you have to claim this kid did anything more than go buy candy and tea and head back to the home he was visiting?

 

[EasterJoy]

I support the right to carry, and this self-protection law. One case, even if Martin was innocent, and it’s becoming more apparent that he was NOT, the answer is to prosecute any person who uses this law to cover his own transgression. I imagine that many lives have been saved b/c the fear of God has been put into potentially homicidal criminals. :coffeeread: Rob

Rather, I think the fear of paranoid Floridians has been put into many, especially people who, unlike homicidal criminals, aren’t packing heat themselves! I’m definitely going to see how this legal situation falls out before I bring any male family members to states with laws like this, but especially Florida.

 

[catharina]

Rather, I think the fear of paranoid Floridians has been put into many, especially people who, unlike homicidal criminals, aren’t packing heat themselves! I’m definitely going to see how this legal situation falls out before I bring any male family members to states with laws like this, but especially Florida.

Yes.

 

[johnnyjones]

Correction! Zimmerman CLAIMS Trayvon Martin was doing wrong when he called in the report. Unfortunately, the only other person who really knows what happened is DEAD!

When a person calls 911, thats what they do, make a CLAIM that something is happening. Do you know how many 911 calls are received each day with various claims?

 

[johnnyjones]

What evidence do you have to claim this kid did anything more than go buy candy and tea and head back to the home he was visiting?

He could have all the skittles in the world in his hand but IF he attacked Zimmerman, Z has a right to defend himself. If you weren’t there it’s all speculation.

 

[EasterJoy]

his friends could just be offering their opinions. what matters is what george’s defense is. his attorney might have very well told him to keep his mouth shut, because he doesn’t want his words cross examined by the media. hopefully it will all come out during trial.

and as to “young black males” being a defense, i’m with you that that alone is no good. but george was reporting suspicious activity (by his standards) and also giving the description which was of a young black male. if i saw an arab man slowly opening a zipper of someone else’s luggage i’d report him. i’d also report it if it was an elderly white woman. to not report that suspicious activity because we are afraid the world will accuse us of racial profiling is utterly irrational.

Let us say that you see an elderly white woman checking out your neighborhood. She is wearing clothing that will obscure her identity and she is checking the place out! You call 9-11 to report her. So far so good: No racial profiling there.

She stares back at you, which you find suspicious. You also chase her; she runs. Later, she sees you and comes after you with her umbrella, because by this time, she’s angry. During the scuffle you see that she has a gun in her handbag. Instead of running, you realize you have reason to believe she has motive and opportunity to kill you, so you shoot her and kill her. You are mortified to find that she is a nosy old lady who did not want her perm to get wet.

Again: I think if you had some legal requirement to look for alternatives before meeting the perception of deadly force with real deadly force, a lot fewer people who incited fear in others would wind up dead. Call me a leftist, but I think that is a good thing.

 

[johnnyjones]

Let us say that you see an elderly white woman checking out your neighborhood. She is wearing clothing that will obscure her identity and she is checking the place out! You call 9-11 to report her. So far so good: No racial profiling there.

She stares back at you, which you find suspicious. You also chase her; she runs. Later, she sees you and comes after you with her umbrella, because by this time, she’s angry. During the scuffle you see that she has a gun in her handbag. Instead of running, you realize you have reason to believe she has motive and opportunity to kill you, so you shoot her and kill her. You are mortified to find that she is a nosy old lady who did not want her perm to get wet.

Again: I think if you had some legal requirement to look for alternatives before meeting the perception of deadly force with real deadly force, a lot fewer people who incited fear in others would wind up dead. Call me a leftist, but I think that is a good thing.

Very inventive but extremely far from reality.

 

[jen_fla]

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to the moment of the scuffle. I mean that as the law removes the duty to retreat from more and more places, the public will take that as an implied permission to advance into altercations. If you have the right to choose between evading what could be a deadly force assault and preemptively killing an assailant capable of killing you, rather than having the duty to evade where evasion is obviously available, then I think it is common sense that more people are going to get killed, isn’t it?

Forget the Zimmerman-Martin case for a moment. Consider this one:
miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

While I can appreciate that we’d all like to see people be able to stand up to a bully or a thief, I think we can also see that removing limits on where you can legally stand your ground is going to get some people hurt and killed. Removing any duty to retreat when you are facing a trespasser in your own home is one thing. Removing it entirely from all places is another thing altogether.

Let us not judge George Zimmerman’s thinking in the heat of the moment. Who thinks it likely that Trayvon Martin intended to kill George Zimmerman…that is, that he attacked a man older and bigger than he was with the idea that he was going to murder him in broad daylight with his bare hands and hoped get away with it? Or that he thought murdering George Zimmerman was worth the prison time?

This law is going to lead to killings where killings did not have to happen. If George Zimmerman knew that he’d have to try to retreat before he could legally use his gun to defend himself, the chances are that most situations like this will end without a death. I think he knew too much of his rights and appreciated too little the consequences of exercising them to the full extent allowed by the law. That is my point.

It is not just Trayvon Martin we should think about. George Zimmerman could be innocent of any crime, and he’ll still have to live with this for the rest of his life. That is worth considering, too, before we give permission to use deadly force too readily.

if it’s true that trayvon was on top of george, how could george retreat? witnesses said they heard him calling for help which was a way to bring other people out to end the fight.

as for that miami case, that judge was wrong as his life was not imminently in danger. i’d bet money that will be over turned. stand you ground doesn’t mean chase and kill.

 

[EasterJoy]

He could have all the skittles in the world in his hand but IF he attacked Zimmerman, Z has a right to defend himself. If you weren’t there it’s all speculation.

Which also means that no one can say whether Zimmerman was attacked or not. It is all speculation either way, only Martin is the one who is dead and only Zimmerman is alive to testify.

If either Zimmerman or Martin had any legal duty to have avoided this confrontation, I don’t think it would have happened. As it was, they both had the right to “stand their ground”…public ground, that they both had a right to be standing on.

Does no one else see the legal concept of “stand your ground” as carte blanche for people who want to kill me to do it when they first have an opportunity to get me into a deserted place? If the whole world knows I’m angry with you and you know I have a concealed weapons permit, you could just follow me and snuff me out. No witnesses, so conjectures that it was murder are “all speculation”. I’m dead, you “stood your ground”, who can prove it was otherwise?

If there is no right to stand one’s ground, both parties to a fight might sometimes have the sense to know that the loser dies but that the survivor is likely to go to prison for life. I think that is a better recipe for cooler heads.

 

[johnnyjones]

Which also means that no one can say whether Zimmerman was attacked or not. It is all speculation either way, only Martin is the one who is dead and only Zimmerman is alive to testify.

If either Zimmerman or Martin had any legal duty to have avoided this confrontation, I don’t think it would have happened. As it was, they both had the right to “stand their ground”…public ground, that they both had a right to be standing on.

Does no one else see the legal concept of “stand your ground” as carte blanche for people who want to kill me to do it when they first have an opportunity to get me into a deserted place? If the whole world knows I’m angry with you and you know I have a concealed weapons permit, you could just follow me and snuff me out. No witnesses, so conjectures that it was murder are “all speculation”. I’m dead, you “stood your ground”, who can prove it was otherwise?

If there is no right to stand one’s ground, both parties to a fight might sometimes have the sense to know that the loser dies but that the survivor is likely to go to prison for life. I think that is a better recipe for cooler heads.

Thats the problem, it’s all speculation and rush to judgment. We here, hopefully are just putting pieces of a puzzle together. I see some credence to Zimmermans actions, some don’t. The actions of Martin are mostly unknown and are based on Zimmermans account.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thats the problem, it’s all speculation and rush to judgment. We here, hopefully are just putting pieces of a puzzle together. I see some credence to Zimmermans actions, some don’t. The actions of Martin are mostly unknown and are based on Zimmermans account.

It is entirely possible that this result was avoidable and yet totally legal. It is very possible that there is nothing that can be prosecuted, even if a law was broken, because of where the burden of proof is legally placed. If I were a Florida voter, I would find that problematic. I think if you shoot someone and kill them, you ought to have some serious explaining to do.

 

[gilliam]

here comes trouble:

Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free

articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-al-sharpton-20120330_1_civil-disobedience-national-action-network-national-association

 

[johnnyjones]

It is entirely possible that this result was avoidable and yet totally legal. It is very possible that there is nothing that can be prosecuted, even if a law was broken, because of where the burden of proof is legally placed. If I were a Florida voter, I would find that problematic. I think if you shoot someone and kill them, you ought to have some serious explaining to do.

I agree, and Zimmerman, to the extent that we are privy, is doing some serious explaining.
No one is saying, “don’t tell us anything just go your way.” The question is, do you believe the explaining?

 

[EasterJoy]

here comes trouble:

Al Sharpton: Civil disobedience will escalate if Zimmerman remains free

articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-trayvon-al-sharpton-20120330_1_civil-disobedience-national-action-network-national-association

Call this rash judgement, but I think Al Sharpton can be an opportunistic troublemaker who opens his mouth before he thinks through the consequences.

 

[jen_fla]

Let us say that you see an elderly white woman checking out your neighborhood. She is wearing clothing that will obscure her identity and she is checking the place out! You call 9-11 to report her. So far so good: No racial profiling there.

She stares back at you, which you find suspicious. You also chase her; she runs. Later, she sees you and comes after you with her umbrella, because by this time, she’s angry. During the scuffle you see that she has a gun in her handbag. Instead of running, you realize you have reason to believe she has motive and opportunity to kill you, so you shoot her and kill her. You are mortified to find that she is a nosy old lady who did not want her perm to get wet.

Again: I think if you had some legal requirement to look for alternatives before meeting the perception of deadly force with real deadly force, a lot fewer people who incited fear in others would wind up dead. Call me a leftist, but I think that is a good thing.

you know maybe we should break up our comments into: racial profiling and the violent episode that took place when g and t were finally close to each other because they are two separate issues.

but as to your scenario. why are you assuming i would find it suspicious if an elderly woman stared at me or that i would chase her? if she was acting funny, the first thing i would think is that she might have alzheimer’s as it is not uncommon at all in florida to hear of the elderly walking around disoriented.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree, and Zimmerman, to the extent that we are privy, is doing some serious explaining.
No one is saying, “don’t tell us anything just go your way.” The question is, do you believe the explaining?

My concern is what kind of explanation the law requires. Even if I were his judge or on his jury, I am duty bound to accept the explanation that the law says suffices. If the police are to be believed, this is the crux of their problem!

Leaving Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt or innoncence out of it for the time being, the police feel that they can’t legally arrest him without being given the power to put more of the burden of explanation on the shooter. If the federal investigation finds this to be true, then I think the voters of Florida have this all on their heads, if Zimmerman can’t be proven to have broken the law. Law enforcement can’t force a citizen to do more than the law requires that he do, and Zimmerman’s attorney would commit malpractice if he allowed Zimmerman to do one bit more, either.

 

[jen_fla]

Which also means that no one can say whether Zimmerman was attacked or not. It is all speculation either way, only Martin is the one who is dead and only Zimmerman is alive to testify.

If either Zimmerman or Martin had any legal duty to have avoided this confrontation, I don’t think it would have happened. As it was, they both had the right to “stand their ground”…public ground, that they both had a right to be standing on.

Does no one else see the legal concept of “stand your ground” as carte blanche for people who want to kill me to do it when they first have an opportunity to get me into a deserted place? If the whole world knows I’m angry with you and you know I have a concealed weapons permit, you could just follow me and snuff me out. No witnesses, so conjectures that it was murder are “all speculation”. I’m dead, you “stood your ground”, who can prove it was otherwise?

If there is no right to stand one’s ground, both parties to a fight might sometimes have the sense to know that the loser dies but that the survivor is likely to go to prison for life. I think that is a better recipe for cooler heads.

they both had a right to defend their lives, but one of them put the other person’s life in danger first. that person is the one who is responsible, not the law.

as a side note, people that don’t live in florida should worry about their own state laws and let floridians take care of theirs. florida is not vermont.

 

[EasterJoy]

Very inventive but extremely far from reality.

Well, there is the unreality that you might be more likely to tell someone who does not look physically imposing that the neighbors do not appreciate strangers nosing around their back yards.

The point remains that in looking for suspicious behavior, you can easily make someone suspicious and fearful of you. That is not always the positive thing that some think it is! Rather than warding off people who intend you harm and chose you precisely because they figure they can take you in a fight that they have no intention of allowing to become fair, you can pick yourself a fight with someone who initially meant you no harm and is armed only for self-protection!

Confronting possible criminals is not a risk-free undertaking, even if the person you confront is not a criminal threat, and I think the “Stand Your Ground” standard puts everyone more at risk. I also think it inappropriately relieves those who use deadly force in a public place of having to account for their actions, which leaves everyone more vulnerable to attack. Criminals, after all, have this way of knowing where the law affords them protection from prosecution!

IMHO, it is a law that combines with human nature to produce too many unintended consequences.