Re: George Zimmerman Verdict
posted at 7/14/2013 1:09 PM EDT
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to Muzwell's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man. The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart? Wow.
The law is essentially the same throughout the country. You may use non-deadly force to defend yourself in all circumstances where you may be injured; and deadly force if you reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's according to the Supreme Court, it's not a Florida thing.
The bottom line is this: Who approached who and how it all started is simply not relevant to the question of self defense. Everyone who wanted to see Zimmerman convicted seems to ignore or gloss over this, but there's no getting around it. It was a bad case that should not have been brought and it wouldn't have been had there not been external pressure on the DA (and had she not caved to said pressure).
The discussion of stand-your-ground was a red herring. Florida has a stand-your-ground law, which means there is no duty to retreat (where you must leave the scene rather than use deadly force if you reasonably can), but that wasn't a factor in this case because he couldn't leave once Martin was on top of him.
A number of states have similar laws. Most (including Mass) only allow you to stand your ground if you're in your home.
That's not totally true. If Zimmerman had initiated the fight (i.e., assaulted Martin), he could not claim self defense. The whole case turns on whether Zimmerman started the actual fight or Martin did. No one was there to witness that, other than Martin and Zimmerman, and Martin is dead. This does make the acquittal just (technically) because there is no evidence to condradict Zimmerman's story. But I find it deeply troubling that Martin was killed by an armed man who was under no threat initially from Martin and who could have easily avoided the whole fatal confrontation by simply not pursuing Martin.
I understand what you are saying, a guy was killed and it is tragedy. No doubt, it wouldn't have happened if he weren't pursued!
However this is what Z did on a constant basis and had the support of his community and was praised for helping to keep crime down. To my knowledge, no other action resulted in an assault and death. He did call the police to report suspicious activity as he had many times before.
Now you can blame him for following when the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to be doing that. However, typically, police response times in such matters tend to be slow and judging from his own comments; "he didn't want to see another one get away."
There is compelling evidence that Z was attacked and not the other way around. The gun was never drawn until after he had his nose broken and head bashed on the ground, repeatedly and Martin went for the gun that was in his holster.
Now you can call it "profiling" but do you or any ones else know this to be true?
Is suspicious activity not enough to be concerned?
In my very younger days, I was employed by a company as a store detective.
What I was taught was 3 things.
1, 40% of your customers are going to steal from you. Race has nothing to do with it.
2, there are certainly activities to look for. Is the person looking around too much, maybe for cameras or store personnel? There are a lot of things to tip you off, all to do with action
3. If you suspect someone, due to the actions, NEVER let him/her out of your sight
As a result of those simple rules, I caught a white police woman, a white congressman's wife a black preacher and a 78 year old black women, a white guy who had multiple warrants out for his arrest and who did try to fight me because if caught, was going straight to jail.... Many, many more.
Now, I wasn't there but I feel like there was probably reason for suspicion.
Wasn't Martin there in the neighborhood (with his uncle as a result of a 10 day suspension) as a result of being found with the goods in a nearby burglary, because the school he attended made an attempt to cover that up as a matter of policy? (In order to make themselves look better.)
Couldn't you say he wouldn't have been killed if the school had acted appropriately, too?
Just sayin, there's a lot of blame to go around.
Maybe we're all victims and maybe we're all at fault at the same time