Seven years after Florida adopted its sweeping self-defense law, the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, has put that law at the center of an increasingly angry debate over how he was killed and whether law enforcement has the authority to charge the man who killed him.
The law, called Stand Your Ground, is one of 21 such laws around the country, many of them passed within the last few years. In Florida, it was pushed heavily by the National Rifle Association but opposed vigorously by law enforcement.
It gives the benefit of the doubt to a person who claims self-defense, regardless of whether the killing takes place on a street, in a car or in a bar ”” not just in one’s home, the standard cited in more restrictive laws. In Florida, if people feel they are in imminent danger from being killed or badly injured, they do not have to retreat, even if it would seem reasonable to do so. They have the right to “stand their ground” and protect themselves.
This story was also in today’s (London) Daily Telegraph. A truly shocking incident. I notice from the report that the NRA promoted the Stand Your Ground law while law enforcement officials opposed it. Another item to add to the NRA’s list of infamy. I ask seriously: Can anyone who is Christian belong to the NRA? I remember when I was in Phoenix about 20 years ago it was discovered that there was a loophole in the law – there seemed to be no minimum age for buying guns. A public meeting was held by the City Council and yes, the NRA opposed a change in the law to take account of this. Just as they have opposed changes to prevent any crackhead buying the most deadly of weapons that will pierce armor and brick walls.
While I’m a gun owner, I don’t believe anyone has the right to take the law into his own hands. Vigilante justice is dead wrong, and this law should be repealed. The fact that Zimmerman is a criminal justice major does not qualify him to serve as a self-appointed neighborhood policeman, and the police chief should be hauled on the carpet for letting him do it.
Well considering that no one wants to determine the fact as to what happened why don’t we just lynch the guy and have done with it. Execution first trial later.
Seriously, I don’t know what happened and until the facts come out I don’t think we should try this in the press.
Terry Lee, you Brits have disarmed yourselves and are hardly in a position of comment on the decisions of free people.
Terry Tee, what an unusually unbalanced and political statement that is from you. Certainly Christians can, and do, belong to the NRA. The organization promotes responsible gun use. I have a shotgun in my home for self-defense. I hope I never have to use it. When I bought it I went to a firing range and learned how to load and fire it properly. The crackheads you refer to probably aren’t using legally purchased and licensed guns. They can always get illegal weapons.
I can’t get to the NY Times article, and have yet to read all the circumstances of this shooting. It needs careful investigation, but we do, you know, have a presumption of innocence prior to court conviction.
You will find more Christians in the NRA than in the ACLU.
This is the section of the Florida statute in question.
“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.”
It is my own opinion from reading the statements about the case and listening to the 911 tape that the facts will bear out that Mr. Zimmerman did not met the criteria for the above. I think more likely that he pursued Mr. Martin, tried to detain him and Mr. Martin defended himself and scuffled with Mr. Zimmerman.
The “Stand Your Ground” language is valid and is not the opening to run away vigilante justice but makes very clear that a person has a reasonable right to defend themselves when they fear they are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm.
PS. It should be noted that courts have determined that the police do not owe a personal duty of protection to any one. So the fact that some police opposed this law says more about them than about shortcomings in the law.
If they have no personal obligation to protect one from death or bodily harm how can they be against people taking their own defense into their own hands?
When I was 12 I bought a used Remington 788, which I used primarily for shooting rats and groundhogs. Several neighbors offered bounties on the carcasses, usually $2. When I began working in the field a year or two later I kept the gun in the cab. It was unusual to work late afternoons without shooting two or three varmints digging everything up. My nephew has the gun now, and I’m pretty sure he keeps it in the cab of his combine for the same reasons– I hadn’t thought much of it until now. Actually, his son might have it.
When I was 14 I was given my cousin’s Winchester Model 12 12 ga shotgun. My uncle said it was because I hadn’t been taking the carcasses out of the field and he had begun having problems with coyotes. Years later I learned there had been several nasty violent crimes in the area and his giving me the gun was a compromise with my mother, who was insisting I stop working for him altogether. Before I could go back I had to take an NRA gun saftey course.
We in the US have an unfortunate habit of attributing a sophistication to Europeans which is unwarranted. I regularly deal with European visitors who fail to grasp that America to this day is still a huge, rural country, that illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are literally risking their lives in the face of both hostile terrain and criminals, and that for most people in the rural US law enforcement is hours or even days away.
I live in a densely poulated area now and have no guns. My kids have each learned how to fire a weapon and have all taken NRA gun safety courses. We are a very ordinary family and they are very ordinary kids. People who have problems with the NRA need to spend less time on the internet.
Thanks for that description of what happened, Paula Loughlin. If what you describe is the case, then the “Stand Your Ground” law does not apply. It’s the same in my home; if I am defending myself, I have the right to do that, but I don’t have the right to pursue a fleeing burglar and shoot him in my front yard as he is leaving.
Clearly, there’s nothing wrong with the law. Trayvon Martin had the right to stand his ground and resist a deadly attack. Unfortunately, he lacked the means to do so. If Mr. Martin had exercised his second amendment rights, he could have killed Mr. Zimmerman instead, or at least had a fighting chance in a shootout.
I believe that this sad occasion can be used to increase support for gun-ownership rights in the African-American community. The NRA should launch an educational program in our schools to encourage all young black men to own a gun and to be armed at all times.
RIP, Trayvon.
Brian, That pretty much sums up my view too.
Very clever use of subtle irony brian_in_brooklyn. From a stylistic and argumentative perspective, one of the best posts ever that I have read.
I think that the problem with the Florida law is that typically, whenever this comes up in court, there is only one person living to give evidence, and that person has a very strong interest in how the confrontation will be portrayed. Couple that with the high bar of proof for criminal convictions, and it is – in reality – exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to convict.
I go on evening walks all the time. If some vigilante nut-job decides to follow me and target me just because he thinks I “look funny”, and when I justifiably seek to escape him, he shoots me dead, he can claim that I did anything. And I am dead, so I can’t give evidence.
“Well, it looked like he had a gun in his hand. I thought he was going to kill me.”
“Well that was just an ice cream cone.”
“Well, it was dark and it looked like a gun.”
Reasonable? Where’s the proof that it isn’t?
If we could access the omniscience of God to weigh in court, than this law might be workable. I don’t question the basic principle behind it, but as it stands, it is basically giving an easy pass to people untrained in police work and untrained in the proper use of deadly force so that they aren’t responsible for the harm they have caused.
I am not necessarily opposed to folks owning guns for self-protection, but the key word is SELF-PROTECTION. In this case, Zimmerman was told by the police NOT to get involved, Zimmerman did not think how it would appear to an innocent person out walking how it would appear to be targeted by some guy on a dark rainy night, Zimmerman had no training how to approach someone, nor did he have any authority to make demands on anyone. This wasn’t a case of “self-protection” under any circumstances (and no, I don’t buy the argument that once Zimmerman foolishly injected himself into a confrontation, that he suddenly should get protected from the consequences of his action).
[I posted this commentary on my blog last night relative to the same story.]
This is a tragic situation. While generally supportive of 2nd amendment rights, I am not supportive of the so called “make my day” laws. The Florida state legislature (also known in some circles as the Florida State Chapter of the National Rifle Association) seems to have conflated the right to legitimate self defense with the right to gun down anyone who looks cross eyed at you. In cases of self defense, at least in situations outside of one’s home or business, the burden of proof should not be on the police. If you shoot someone dead in a quasi public environment where you had the option of walking (or in this case driving) away, you should bear the burden of justifying your actions in court.
I am having a very hard time believing that an unarmed 17 year old kid, alone, who has never been in trouble with the law, would pick a fight with a man armed with a pistol. Everything I have read about it makes me strongly suspect that this is a case of cold blooded murder.
Unfortunately under Florida law all you have to do is utter two magic words, “self defense,” and absent strong evidence to the contrary you have a get out of jail free card. In this case you have the dubious statements of a man known for carrying a gun and an attitude, versus the silence of a kid who can’t speak for himself because he is fertilizing dandelions and whom the law has largely deprived of any champions.
The lesson here… if you visit Florida and get into any kind of altercation shoot first and be damned sure that the other guy doesn’t have a chance to offer his version of events in court.
Paula – you might want to reread Brian’s post and think about it some more. I think that Brian would very much like us to contemplate on how many white, middle class Americans would react if the NRA were to “launch an educational program in our schools to encourage all young black men to own a gun and to be armed at all times.”
Jamesw,
Roy Innis, former chairman of the Congress for Racial Equality, is a board member of the NRA preciscely because he believes blacks in public housing deserve the same right to be armed as the gangs terrorizing them.
As a 60-year old, I would be hard pressed to defend myself against most unarmed healthy 17-year old males, black, white, or any other color, unless I was armed, which I am.
The fact is, the reporting of this case has been so biased that nobody knows what really happened but assumes Mr. Zimmerman was some sort of trigger-happy racist vigilante and Mr. Martin was an eagle scout choirboy. The ploice didn’t feel the need to charge Mr. Zimmerman and only the firestorm of criticism from the Feds and the media have caused the Grand Jury to get involved. Trial by media rather than by our justice system is at work here.
The “Castle Doctrine” and “No Retreat” are excellent laws that have helped tip the balance of the law back in favor of the innocent and away from the criminals.
subscribe
Evan: The police have not charged Zimmerman because they haven’t yet found sufficient evidence to disprove his claim of “self-defense.” Who is the only person who could contest this claim? The dead boy. Hence the concern over this law.
The evidence that is out there is already pretty clear. Zimmerman called the cops and indicated he thought that the boy was up to no good, despite having no objective evidence other than seeing the kid walking. He was told by the cops not to follow him. The kid’s girlfriend states that he expressed concern that he was being followed by someone, and the kid asked Zimmerman why he was being followed. Yes, we need to wait to hear more evidence, but based on what we have heard so far, the kid’s actions seem eminently reasonable, trying to escape a potentially dangerous situation. Zimmerman, on the other hand, sought to engage in and escalate a potentially dangerous situation, despite the fact that cops were on their way.
There is no issue here of whether you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force if it is truly self-defense. The issue is whether you have the duty to retreat if possible without using deadly force. In other words, there is a duty to try to ratchet down a confrontation if that is possible before turning to deadly force.
[blockquote] There is no issue here of whether you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force if it is truly self-defense. The issue is whether you have the duty to retreat if possible without using deadly force. In other words, there is a duty to try to ratchet down a confrontation if that is possible before turning to deadly force. [/blockquote]
Money quote.
[blockquote] The evidence that is out there is already pretty clear. Zimmerman called the cops and indicated he thought that the boy was up to no good, despite having no objective evidence other than seeing the kid walking. He was told by the cops not to follow him. The kid’s girlfriend states that he expressed concern that he was being followed by someone, and the kid asked Zimmerman why he was being followed. Yes, we need to wait to hear more evidence, but based on what we have heard so far, the kid’s actions seem eminently reasonable, trying to escape a potentially dangerous situation. Zimmerman, on the other hand, sought to engage in and escalate a potentially dangerous situation, despite the fact that cops were on their way.[/blockquote]
No need for a trial then. The facts are clear so lets have the lynching. The facts were clear in Boston too, yet Mr. Adams was able to defend the British soldiers who killed American colonists when it turned out at trial that the “facts” everyone assumed were not facts at all.
As for the police disproving a claim of self defense, this is simply another way of saying that the state has to prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, or do you want to dispense with that too.
Mr. Zimmerman may well be guilty of a crime, but a politically charged situation with political action groups calling for blood and people with political and racial axes to grind is not the best way to determine the truth.
JamesW,
Truth to tell I am in favor of residence of high crime areas who qualify for gun ownership under the statutes of this state (Florida) being able to obtain an expedited license for “CCW.” permits Obviously that would include quite a few young black men.
If memory serves the law was written in reaction to several cases where homeowners were charged for defending themselves in situations as described in the law.
Br. Michael,
Probable cause is required for an indictment, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I know of no-one calling for blood, I do know that many are calling for the indictment and arrest of Mr. Zimmerman.
Regardless, Mr. Zimmerman will receive (and should receive) a significantly higher level of justice than Mr. Martin did. Mr. Martin, armed only with soda and Skittles, received the death penalty without access to judge or jury–where is the concern for his rights?
Br. Michael: I didn’t say that there was no need for a trial. I did say that there is prima facie evidence that strongly suggests that this was not a case of self-defense.
I mean really – will this be your retort for every crime? Nobody can possibly be arrested and charged with a crime because they haven’t yet been convicted? Who possibly could ever be arrested under such a construct? Child molesters are charged before they are convicted. Why are they charged? Because there is prima facie evidence. Is that enough to convict? No, the evidence needs to be heard in court. But you’ve got to start somewhere. So, let’s at least try to be reasonable, shall we?
I think that the evidence adduced so far suggests that Zimmerman did not, in fact, kill in self-defense. But that is something to be investigated. But that’s not really the issue being discussed in this thread.
The issue here has to do with the “duty to retreat”. If a killer can eliminate all inconvenient evidence by killing all potential witnesses, and then go off scott-free because there is no longer any evidence to contradict his subjective-state-of-mind claims, you’ve got a problematic law. If there is an objective standard to hold someone accountable, you are on much more solid ground.
Excellent posts, jamesw.
And, personally, I think Terry Tee has every right to comment on the “decisions of free people.” However, I will say that it’s difficult to feel like a “free” person knowing that if you or a loved one choose the wrong street to walk down one night, some nutjob could start firing. If everyone arms themselves to defend their own, individual freedoms, then no one is really safe or free, when you come down to it.
That’s what this case shows, I think. The young man’s freedom to walk down a street encountered an armed man’s freedom to “protect” his property from people he deemed suspicious. Was the young man justified in thinking he should be able to walk freely down a street without being assaulted in any way? Yes. Was the armed man justified in thinking he should be able to shoot anyone he thought looked suspicious? No. If he gets away with this then it could set a scary precedent.
This is where I find myself in a quandary about gun laws.
I have no problem at all with the notion of reasonable, responsible people, who know how to handle firearms competently and safely, and who have a notion of when and when not to use them based on reality rather than on Hollywood, owning and carrying guns. In fact, given the statistics, I’m positively in favor of it. I’m a gun owner myself, if it comes to that.
I do have a problem with the idea of guns in the hands of those who are irresponsible, careless, clueless, or who form their ideas of when it’s appropriate to draw and fire based on Rambo or Dirty Harry. The evidence here is suggestive that Mr. Zimmerman was such a person — although, of course, his actual culpability, if any, will need to be determined in a court of law.
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to think of a reliable objective test that distinguishes the responsible gun owners from the wanna-be vigilantes. Competence, at least, could be tested for; and I wouldn’t object to requiring gun owners to demonstrate a basic level of knowledge and skill, much as we do with driving. But attitude is a nebulous concept.
The majority of gun owners, in my experience, are eminently responsible and competent. And I do not advocate removing guns from the populace just because of a small percentage of nutters like Mr. Zimmerman is alleged to be. I just wish there were a way of filtering them out before they do something that causes a tragedy.
I just read an AP report that says when police arrived Zimmerman was bleeding from his head and the back of his shirt had grass on it, as if he’d been pinned on the ground. This is probably why he was not charged initially. An investigation is surely called for, however.
I often read about mostly black neighborhoods in neighboring Durham, NC, for instance, where decent black residents say they are afraid of the criminals among them and afraid to call the police for fear they will be murdered. It would be a good thing if such people had guns for self-defense in their homes. Statistics consistently show that where residents are likely to be armed they are less likely to suffer home invasions.
“If everyone arms themselves to defend their own, individual freedoms, then no one is really safe or free, when you come down to it.”
And when the state is the sole bearer of arms you have tyranny. Ask the Jews.
Better yet ask the Syrians.
Br. Michael, polemics are never a good idea. I’m not saying that no one should be able to own a gun except “the state,” but do you really think that a vigilante neighborhood watch program is a good idea and one that the law should support?
Yes, people should have guns if they need them but the laws must not provide an out for trigger-happy individuals. From the articles I’ve read, people are increasingly using this law to claim self-defense and get away with killing. Gang members and felons included.
“a vigilante neighborhood watch program” Now who is using polemics?
This thing has become totally politicized. The PC crowd has all the facts it need and they are out for Zimmerman’s blood. A totally political federal justice department has been called in and the press has already picked the sacrifice: http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-case-lead-investigator-asked-step-down-231154652–abc-news.html
All I am trying to say is that we don’t have the facts. We have assumptions, polemics, charges and I don’t know what else. You say there was a vigilante neighborhood watch program. How do you know that? Of your own knowledge or based on what you read? How do you know that “laws … provide an out for trigger happy individuals”? How do you know this? From personal knowledge or reading statements by the laws critics?
Indeed the situation is now so inflamed how can you be sure that any charge against Zimmerman won’t be made simply to diffuse the political situation? If charged can Zimmerman receive a fair trial in something that is now overrun with politics? Clearly the political thing to do is charge Zimmerman regardless to diffuse the racial angle. But is that justice, or is the better thing to do to find out what the facts are in a professional and unbiased meaner and let the chips fall where they may?
Unfortunately it has gone to far and it will be all but impossible to remove the politics, racial demagoguery and gun control agendas from this case.
I can’t really comment on this story because I don’t know what happened yet. I’m sure we’ll discover, though.
But I find myself stunned at the assumption of raw bigotry found in this [and several other] comments on the thread: ” I think that Brian would very much like us to contemplate on how many white, middle class Americans would react if the NRA were to “launch an educational program in our schools to encourage all young black men to own a gun and to be armed at all times.â€
I am a white, middle class American — and I am from the deep South — and I would be [i]thrilled if the NRA or any other credible organization would launch an educational program aimed at encouraging all young blacks — men or women — to own a gun and to be armed at all times.[/i]
All of the black criminals — and white criminals and Hispanic criminals — already have guns, and the very thing that blacks need, particularly the ones in dreadful neighborhoods — are ways to defend themselves as the police take their sweet time about getting their in the event of a crime.
Sarah: You may think that what Brian ironically suggests is a good thing. I can guarantee you, though, that there would be a public outcry if the NRA did that. I know that, and I think that you know that very well also. And that’s not necessarily “raw bigotry”. I find myself having views close to Ross (post #23) but I also understand that there are some contexts in which flooding the market with handguns would result in disaster. And encouraging the proliferation of handguns amongst groups of unemployed, undereducated young males of ANY RACE would be foolish and cause for public outcry. But I think it either disingenuous or extremely naive to think that if you added race to the mix, that there would not be a heightened public outcry in America today. And I think you know that too.
Don’t get me wrong – I have no problem with gun ownership and the ability to defend yourself, your family, or your home from serious, credible threats. But that’s not at issue here. The issue that is actually being raised here is that of “duty to retreat” from any place the person has a lawful right to be. This isn’t a law about being able to defend yourself in your home.
Do we want to live in a society in which everyone needs to arm themselves whenever they go out for a walk, and every time somebody walks by you or drives by you, you need to pull out your gun? That would be madness. That is what is happening in central Africa or Mexico. Why would be want to export that here?
If the black kid was killed sheltering from the rain on Zimmerman’s back porch, and Zimmerman thought he was a burglar and mistook his iced tea for a gun and so killed him ostensibly in self-defense, that would be one thing. A tragedy, yes, but there would have been objective evidence that the kid was on Zimmerman’s property and could reasonably be mistaken for a burglar. Or if the black kid had approached Zimmerman on the street and pursued Zimmerman. Again, there would be objective evidence that the kid might have been threatening. But in this case, the kid was walking where he had every right to walk and Zimmerman pursued him. And we say “but there’s no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claims” – well duhhh!!!! – the other guy is dead. And THAT’S the problem with this law. There is no objective test as to whether the person constituted a real threat or not. Only the survivor can give evidence – and it is subjective.
We are all at risk under this scenario – it makes everybody less safe, and it undermines public support for the reasonable right to self-defense.
Jamesw,
In neither central Africa nor Mexico are the general public allowed to own guns, and with corrupt and /or ineffective security forces, they are left at the mercy of the criminals.
I walk down the street – any street – and don’t feel the need to pull out my gun for fear of those I pass by. But if the other fellow means me harm and pulls a weapon, I am in a position to defend myself. The police are in the business of solving crimes, not preventing them. “When only seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” “No duty to retreat” laws recognize the law-abiding citizen’s right to not be a prey species.
Evan: Law-abiding citizens can carry guns (if they have a permit) and defend themselves from credible threats without “no duty to retreat” laws. Yes, they have a “duty to retreat” from potentially violent situations, but if attacked and retreat is not reasonably possible, they can respond with force. “No duty to retreat” laws do not give a right to self-defense. Rather, they reward belligerent, stupid and unreasonable people, and reward such people if they kill off all potential witnesses, because there is no objective standard to be met.
Sorry, Jamesw, we’ll just have to disagree. And I’m glad my state legislators, courts, and executive branch agree with me and not you. Now if the Federal Justice Department will just leave us alone, we’ll be just fine and continue to enjoy steeply declining rates of violent crime in general and gun crime in particular.
Sure, after all what does it matter if a few innocent people have to be sacraficed to buy some added security? It’s worth it, right? Just so long as it isn’t one of your relatives.
Actually, yes. In the military it’s called “collateral damage,” highly regretable, but sometimes necessary.
There seems to be an extreme overreaction going on with respect to this incident. Facts need to be determined. If, in fact, Zimmerman pursued Martin, provoked a confrontation, and then shot him, he should be charged. The “Stand Your Ground” law doesn’t even apply if those are the facts — and we don’t know for sure yet. All of this discussion and uproar over the law, calling it a vigilante statute, is unwarranted. As I read the statute, all it says is that if you are attacked in a public place you have a right to defend yourself. It corrects a situation in which you were supposed to run away hoping you didn’t get shot in the back on the way. The law is not the problem. Zimmerman’s behavior, if it was not consistent with this law, and common decency, really, is the problem.
RE “You may think that what Brian ironically suggests is a good thing.”
Yes, I do.
RE: “I think that you know that very well also.”
No, I don’t.
RE: ” . . . some contexts in which flooding the market with handguns would result in disaster.”
The market is already flooded with handguns. Disaster has already occurred. Which is why I hope every law-abiding citizen will learn how to use a gun and also which ones to acquire.
RE: “And encouraging the proliferation of handguns amongst groups of unemployed, undereducated young males of ANY RACE would be foolish and cause for public outcry.”
Why? Being unemployed or undereducated doesn’t make someone a criminal. And those who *are* criminals won’t be showing up to an NRA seminar on how to handle a gun and use it safely, much less enter their marksmanship events.
RE: “And I think you know that too.”
You keep saying that — but you don’t know me very well at all.
RE: “Don’t get me wrong – I have no problem with gun ownership and the ability to defend yourself, your family, or your home from serious, credible threats.”
Except for poor black people, I guess.
RE: “But that’s not at issue here. The issue that is actually being raised here is that of “duty to retreat†from any place the person has a lawful right to be.”
Actually the issue is that 1) the law doesn’t appear to have applied at all in this case and 2) we don’t yet know the facts, regardless.
RE: “But in this case, the kid was walking where he had every right to walk and Zimmerman pursued him.”
Right — it certainly *looks* as if [given our very limited knowledge] the law had absolutely nothing to do with the situation. Certainly if that is indeed what happened, then it is no application of the said law, though certainly the libs will use it as such.
evan miller,
His name was Treyvon Martin, not “collateral damage.â€
Yes, but we’ll never know the names of the hundreds of thousands or Japanese and German civilians, and thousands of French and Italian civilians killed by Allied bombs in WWII, which, in the case of intentional carpet bombing of cities, I consider indefensible, but most people seem to excuse as the lesser of two evils. However regretable, I believe some accidental deaths are the lesser of two evils compared to a disarmed citizenry or one hamstrung by overly restrictive prohibitions on the use of deadly force and therefore at the mercy of those younger, stronger, or better armed.
evan miller,
We are not at war.
Your callousness is shocking.
“Actually the issue is that 1) the law doesn’t appear to have applied at all in this case and 2) we don’t yet know the facts, regardless.”
Well, the issue is that in law, you need to prove facts in evidence before you can get a conviction. Witnesses give evidence. Kill the witnesses, and you have no evidence, other than circumstances. If the law eliminates consideration of circumstances, and permits the killing of witnesses, there isn’t any evidence. So under this law, people can be murdered in cold blood on the street, and it would be exceedingly difficult to get a conviction if the perpetrator claimed “self-defense.” It doesn’t really matter whether Zimmerman is guilty or not (that’s an issue, of course, but it only points to the inherent problem with this law). Under most self-defense statutes, there would need to be some sort of objective evidence that the deceased was a threat.
“Why? Being unemployed or undereducated doesn’t make someone a criminal.”
No, and being a Muslim doesn’t make you a terrorist, but that doesn’t mean that profiling at airports is wrong. And being a young male doesn’t mean you are a bad driver, but that doesn’t mean that auto insurance companies shouldn’t charge them more. And being a smoker doesn’t mean that you will die younger, but that doesn’t mean that life insurance companies shouldn’t charge them more. And being someone who perspires easily doesn’t make you a liar, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong for police or border guards to question you more closely if you do. And so on.
What about the callousness is the saying, “It is better that 10 guilty walk free, than one innocent person be convicted.” What about the innocents killed because they couldn’t defend themselves.
Who is being callous? The brutal truth is that, until the second coming, innocent people will die which ever way you go. I think that of the two choices that fewer will die on Evans side of the equation.
And regards Evan’s arguments, I rest my case. I am sure that Evan would have a different opinion if it was his wife, child, or other relative who was gunned down.
A fairly balanced summary of what we know, and what we don’t, is [url=http://pjmedia.com/blog/treyvon-martin-scant-evidence-already-a-verdict/?singlepage=true]here[/url].
Law-abiding black folks, whether male or female, living high-crime areas would benefit from having weapons and being trained to use them responsibly. A person does not need to be highly educated to understand responsible self-defense. If potential burglars and assaulters knew they might be resisted with force, the whole neighborhood would get a lower crime rate. Perhaps people could resume sitting on their front porches in the evenings as they used to.
The argument that because some unscrupulous person might, perhaps, take advantage of this law to kill an innocent witness, therefore Floridians in general should not have the legal right to defend themselves in public, just doesn’t make sense to me.
“The brutal truth is that, until the second coming, innocent people will die which ever way you go…”
It’s been better said, “Br. Michael”:
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
Do any of you people remember the Duke Lacrosse team, or perhaps more pertinent, Al “Sharpie” Sharpton and the Tawana Brawley case? How about waiting for an impartial sifting of the evidence and a fair trial. Oh wait – the possibility for a fair trial has gone out the window because of reactions just like the ones on this thread.
The situation is a tragedy, but what is worse is the professional parasites who live off of racial tension stoking the fires. Will they be happy when an enraged gang of black youths take it out on some unsuspecting white man or Hispanic man?
Katherine:
“The argument that because some unscrupulous person might, perhaps, take advantage of this law to kill an innocent witness, therefore Floridians in general should not have the legal right to defend themselves in public, just doesn’t make sense to me.”
Nobody here is saying that citizens should not have the right to self-defense. Please re-read the story in Kendall’s original blog posting:
This isn’t about the right to self-defense. This is about giving the benefit of the doubt to (i.e. making it very difficult, if not impossible to convect) people who kill others and then claim self-defense, regardless of the circumstances of the killing.
Yebonoma:
1. Please actually read the comments before you respond to them. Nobody is calling for automatic conviction.
2. The fact that many liberals piggybacked on the Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal doesn’t mean that we should henceforth ignore all cases of reported sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. Just because liberals protest a thing, and cynically use it to promote an agenda, doesn’t mean that reasonable people can’t also have concerns over the thing.
jamesw, I am not particularly swayed by editorializing in NY Times news articles. I do not see why I can defend myself in my own home but may not do so away from home. If I go beyond reasonable self-defense to aggressive actions which result in death, I should be charged with manslaughter or murder, and if I do that, I probably will be. This shooter’s complete police statement has not been released, and there is a grand jury sitting. If this man is charged with anything, from murder to lesser charges, the hysterical reactions of papers like the NY Times and racial advocacy groups will make it very hard for him to get a fair trial.
Br. Michael, When a man who does “neighborhood watch” armed follows a young man in the neighborhood even though the police dispatcher told him NOT to follow and he complains in the 911 recording about how these (expletives) always get away, there is a serious problem. Yes, he put himself into a vigilante role, chasing after someone who wasn’t doing anything wrong in the neighborhood. Listen to the 911 tapes.
And read the facts about how and by whom this law has been used since its passage. The stats are there.
“Zimmerman told police Martin attacked him after he had given up on chasing the teenager and was returning to his sport utility vehicle. Police say the 28-year-old Zimmerman is white; his family says he’s Hispanic.” So according to this statement Zimmerman was “retreating” and was attacked.
So you tell us which recitation of the facts is true!
Maybe you subscribe to this statement: “We want an arrest, we want a conviction and we want him sentenced for the murder of my son,” Martin’s father, Tracy, said to the fiery crowd of rally goers.”
http://news.yahoo.com/2-florida-officials-step-aside-teen-death-probe-001428063.html
Newspaper articles and untested and inflamitory statements are hardly the way to determine the truth, but you all seem to have made up your minds and I see no point in continuing the discussion. As for me, I wasn’t there and I don’t know what happened and I will wait for the trial and or the investigation report.
It seems like some are assuming it’s this “no retreat” law in question that has directly caused Mr. Martin’s death, rather than, y’know Mr. Zimmerman. Law shouldn’t be judged as good or bad based on one case even if it IS found that it contributed to the situation. Hard cases make bad law, right? Let’s look at the overall situation and see if that law has worked or not instead of scapegoating something that may not have actually had anything to do with this awful incident. I’m in Orlando, and Sanford’s local government and police force has long been seen as corrupt, ineffective, etc. and many parts of Sanford are rather dangerous. There are plenty of contributing factors to what happened to Trayvon.. I’m not at all convinced race or “no retreat” actually played a part yet, especially considering that’s the FIRST place the usual suspects went.
Jamew, #43,
No I wouldn’t. My loss wouldn’t alter my belief that the law is a good law.
Thanks to Chris Molter for the local view. Since there are lingering questions about the Sanford police and prosecutors, I am glad to know a state review of the case is underway.
On the other hand, I am dubious that the U.S. Justice Department involvement will help much at all. This is a Justice Dept. that, here in North Carolina, ruled that a majority-black town could not have non-partisan municipal elections as it had voted to do because, in Justice’s eyes, black voters would be unable to determine how to vote without “Democrat” next to names. The whole slate is likely to be Democrats, and black ones at that, in that town.
The arrival of Al Sharpton in Sanford, Florida, means this has become officially a circus. Wait until the grand jury investigation is complete before passing judgment.
RE: “but that doesn’t mean that profiling at airports is wrong. . . . ”
So you really are advocating “profiling” for whether people should have guns or not? If they’re black, unemployed and ill-educated — no guns for them!
Wow.
And I’ve always been told *Southerners* were the ractists!
Sarah: You disappoint me. But still, I am perversely encouraged that you can be so wrong, since I had previously marveled at your wisdom and argumentative prowess. You now prove that you are just as fallen and prone to error as the rest of us.
Did I say anywhere that I advocate racial profiling for whether people should have guns or not? No, I did not. I commented that it was unwise to encourage the proliferation of guns among certain demographic groups (i.e. unemployed, under-educated young males). You retorted that being a young unemployed, under-educated male did not make one a criminal. I then simply proferred evidence that suggested that it is a very sane and commonly done thing to make risk assessments based on demographic group.
Katherine – I am not swayed by NY Times editorials either. In fact, I rarely read them. I might point out to you, that UNTIL the outcry, the local police had decided to do nothing. Sure, there is some over the top stuff going on, but that’s going to happen any time there is gross injustice that is going on. Rush Limbaugh’s excesses doesn’t justify the Obama contraception mandate. The justice system is perfectly capable of providing a fair hearing for Zimmerman.
Chris Molter – the law is very much a problem for the reasons I have stated before (which I might point out to Katherine are my own thoughts and not from any NY Times editorial that I know of). What’s to prevent a protester from shooting Zimmerman in cold blood on the streets later on, and then claiming “self defense”? As long as the only witness is killed, there isn’t anybody who can contradict.
And, by the way Sarah, I have never heard Southerners called ractists (in fact, I’ve never anyone called ractist), but when I lived in the South myself some years ago, I certainly did NOT get the impression that Southerners were any more racist than anyone else.