There's no real self defense issue here for the second shot, though. Witnesses are testifying that he shot the kid, the kid was on the ground begging, and then he fired a second shot.
The kid was attacking him! He was attacking him so much he almost got away!
And apparently it was Zimmerman calling for help. Which he then gave himself.
I'm even trying to give old zim the benefit of the doubt here, but the fact that there's no investigation just boggles my fucking mind.
In one of the articles I read, one of the witnesses scrapes together more brainpower than the entire police force:
"I feel it was not self-defense, because I heard the crying, and if it was Zimmerman that was crying, Zimmerman would have continued crying after the shot went off," said Mary Kutcher, speaking to television reporters.
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
This asshole should have been locked up according to the law as it stands.
The dispatcher told him to stay inside after he called the police saying there was a black kid in the neighborhood that "seemed suspicious" (Read: Blacks in my neighborhood! (It's more likely then you think.)). His response was to go get his gun hunt the kid down, and then start and escalate the situation to a (violent) confrontation that ended the kids life.
He essentially stalked the kid and then murdered him after disobeying direct orders from the dispatcher that would have resolved the situation peacefully. Nevermind the lack of due cause during the actual situation itself for leaving his home to hunt the kid down and put a few bullets in him.
Having lived in a state with Castle Doctrine laws, I can tell you that it doesn't say jack shit about confrontations outside the home that you start. Or just going directly out of your way to start a fight. Castle Doctrine does not at all apply to this mans defense unless local law enforcement wants to pretend that it does, and circumvent the written law to give this guy a free pass on murdering someone.
People bitch and moan around where I currently live about how they can't "defend themselves" without having to worry about getting taken to court by the local justice system if they're attacked outside the limitations of what Castle Doctrine protects you over, but this is where the alternative tends to lead.
The problem here is that they aren't using Castle Doctrine to nail him to the wall for what he did. Castle Doctrine does not, unless the law has been extensively modified to cover what he did in his state, cover for his actions. He went out of his way to start a confrontation, regardless of how the kid responded, thus the self defense claim is invalid.
Claiming self defense in this case is like someone claiming self defense after they went out, bought a gun, then shot up a restaurant. "But they served me bad food!" is not a justification for turning around and concocting a potentially premeditated plan to blow away the waiter and assistant manager. Neither is ignoring the orders of the representative of the authorities you called for your own safety to go and stalk and attack someone, when you verbally told a representative of the law that you thought they were a threat.
Castle Doctrine is great for covering you legally if someone attacks you within your own home or in a way that threatens your life. And indeed, it's something of a necessity to ensure fairness after the fact. That way you don't have some hillbilly cop trying to put a black man or woman in jail for three times the recommended sentence for blowing away a white home invader (Which has happened before.). This sounds like a case of Castle Doctrine being horribly perverted to cover some old white racist's ass.
Fun fact: The guy who shot and killed the kid was previously locked up for assault. Against a police officer, if I do recall. He's basically a redneck and/or racist nutjob that is playing the system to get out of a glory killing.
Archonex on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
This asshole should have been locked up according to the law as it stands.
The dispatcher told him to stay inside after he called the police saying there was a black kid in the neighborhood that "seemed suspicious" (Read: Blacks in my neighborhood! (It's more likely then you think.)). His response was to go get his gun hunt the kid down, and then start and escalate the situation to a (violent) confrontation that ended the kids life.
He essentially stalked the kid and then murdered him after disobeying direct orders from the dispatcher that would have resolved the situation peacefully. Nevermind the lack of due cause during the actual situation itself for leaving his home to hunt the kid down and put a few bullets in him.
Having lived in a state with Castle Doctrine laws, I can tell you that it doesn't say jack shit about confrontations outside the home that you start. Or just going directly out of your way to start a fight. Castle Doctrine does not at all apply to this mans defense unless local law enforcement wants to pretend that it does, and circumvent the written law to give this guy a free pass on murdering someone.
People bitch and moan around where I currently live about how they can't "defend themselves" without having to worry about getting taken to court by the local justice system if they're attacked outside the limitations of what Castle Doctrine protects you over, but this is where the alternative tends to lead.
Fun fact: The guy who shot and killed the kid was previously locked up for assault. Against a police officer, if I do recall. He's basically a redneck and/or racist nutjob that is playing the system to get out of a glory killing.
On NBC News earlier today they said the FBI is investigating or something like that.
I hope that useless piece of shit Zimmerman is brought to justice.
Hearing that 9/11 tape, knowing that kid was just walking home with a bag of Skittles and Ice Tea for his brother, causing no trouble, and then that guy just ambushes him and executes him. God damnit this pisses me off so much.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I like that his "suspicious behavior" was wearing a hoodie in the rain, and looking at the houses as he walked.
Just remember that next time you walk anywhere: looking around means you're casing the joint.
edit: this also leads into my suspicion that Neighborhood Watches are made up of people who either A) are paranoid, or really want to start trouble. I got this impression after a friend of mine forwarded me her condo mailing list emails every time we went for a walk along the walking path near the building. Nothing but "two suspicious characters were walking around!" describing our outfits, and asking if they could call the cops on us.
This asshole should have been locked up according to the law as it stands.
The dispatcher told him to stay inside after he called the police saying there was a black kid in the neighborhood that "seemed suspicious" (Read: Blacks in my neighborhood! (It's more likely then you think.)). His response was to go get his gun hunt the kid down, and then start and escalate the situation to a (violent) confrontation that ended the kids life.
He essentially stalked the kid and then murdered him after disobeying direct orders from the dispatcher that would have resolved the situation peacefully. Nevermind the lack of due cause during the actual situation itself for leaving his home to hunt the kid down and put a few bullets in him.
Having lived in a state with Castle Doctrine laws, I can tell you that it doesn't say jack shit about confrontations outside the home that you start. Or just going directly out of your way to start a fight. Castle Doctrine does not at all apply to this mans defense unless local law enforcement wants to pretend that it does, and circumvent the written law to give this guy a free pass on murdering someone.
People bitch and moan around where I currently live about how they can't "defend themselves" without having to worry about getting taken to court by the local justice system if they're attacked outside the limitations of what Castle Doctrine protects you over, but this is where the alternative tends to lead.
Fun fact: The guy who shot and killed the kid was previously locked up for assault. Against a police officer, if I do recall. He's basically a redneck and/or racist nutjob that is playing the system to get out of a glory killing.
Basically all of this.
I expanded on my post after you quoted it a bit to explain why Castle Doctrine is actually a good thing for states that use it properly, and why states that don't have it tend to have a whole other set of racial issues.
But yeah, basically, it boils down to that. This guy committed a crime, and is trying to use protective legislation meant to guard people against legal or criminal court action after the a home invasion is dealt with, to justify playing around with hunting down some unsuspecting kid that was wandering through the neighborhood.
They should lock his ass up and throw away the key. Either he's batshit insane and incredibly manipulative, or he's violently racist (Much more likely.) and incredibly manipulative. Nothing of what's happened reeks of him being stupid so far.
Archonex on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Indeed, on principle I agree with Castle Law, but in practice I find it to be dangerous.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Indeed, on principle I agree with Castle Law, but in practice I find it to be dangerous.
It's only dangerous if mis-handled by the law enforcement types on a large scale.
Take this case for example: If it had been the white guy that had gotten killed after the black kid saw some maniac running at him with a gun, disarmed said maniac, and was forced to fire back at him, and Castle Doctrine wasn't in effect, then he would most likely be fucked given how the police are trying to tamper with the witnesses before the FBI and any sort of state sponsored investigation get on the scene and start investigating.
As it is, he could, at the very worst, appeal a criminal court decision, and any intelligent or even marginally competent judge could look at this and go "What the fuck just happened in our legal system here?" and throw out the case against him. If it even made it that far, which is unlikely.
Assuming Castle Doctrine covers out of home engagements in Florida (It does not in most states that I know of, hence the word Castle in Castle Doctrine. It was originally, I believe, conceived to defend personal property/yourself on said property.), this means that the lawyer could have a field day dragging the police through the mud before getting said kid off the hook. And even if it didn't, since the kid was not on explicitly private property, and was assaulted out of the blue, in a state with Castle Doctrine the mentality could be there to support him in court.
The problem isn't Castle Doctrine, it's the fact that local law enforcement is playing buddy-buddy with what's essentially a rent a cop wannabe. Unfortunately for all of them, it appears the FBI and state enforcement agencies far above their heads are taking a notice in this.
I can't watch/listen to the 911 videos. There's no way I'll be able to compose myself. I've heard that one has Trayvon begging for his life before the shot... And SOMEHOW this guy was found 100% innocent!? I... I'm getting worked up again.
I like that his "suspicious behavior" was wearing a hoodie in the rain, and looking at the houses as he walked.
Just remember that next time you walk anywhere: looking around means you're casing the joint.
Oh no I don't have to worry, I'm not black.
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
Florida apparently has "Stand Your Ground" laws. Which is what he's actually hiding behind to keep from getting thrown in jail. Stand Your Ground laws state that the old English law of a "duty to retreat" from hostile situations outside the home no longer apply.
Still doesn't really apply.
First of all, he sought out the conflict and made the call to the dispatcher presumably while in his home, so i'm reasonably certain that any prosecutor who wasn't completely retarded could nail this guy if he wanted too and the police did their job. That's not self defense. That's assault and murder.
Normally, the police would have to prove that his life was not in danger before he could be tried, but any prosecutor or someone even barely familiar with law could easily make the case that since he took the time to call a dispatcher, ignored the dispatchers orders, grabbed his gun, got in his car, and hunted the guy down to start a fight, that he's not protected by Stand Your Ground laws.
Nice to see that the cops got caught out, though. They claimed that the kid wasn't begging for his life before being sued and forced into releasing the tapes.
Hell, there's apparently a prosecutor in the SA thread saying that if this case came across his desk it'd be an open and shut case. Problem is the local police broke the law multiple times to keep it from getting that far. Not so much a case of legislation failing, but of corruption on a massive scale. When you're tampering with witnesses, lying about evidence as justification for not doing your job, and even refusing to release it, something like a law isn't going to stop you from finding justification.
Archonex on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
The castle doctrine works if people are not stupid. Unfortunately people are stupid.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I can't watch/listen to the 911 videos. There's no way I'll be able to compose myself. I've heard that one has Trayvon begging for his life before the shot... And SOMEHOW this guy was found 100% innocent!? I... I'm getting worked up again.
Well, he wasn't "found innocent", I think only juries do that (or "not guilty" rather). THe local cops in their infinite wisdom just decided there "wasn't enough evidence to arrest him." Which is pretty obviously bullshit now.
Luckily it sounds like at least the state's attorney is involved now. Hopefully the feds pay attention to this case as well.
The castle doctrine works if people are not stupid. Unfortunately people are stupid.
Except this wasn't a case of Castle Doctrine, which relates primarily to things like home invasions. If it was just under Castle Doctrine, even the police couldn't protect him.
This relates to a relatively new concept called "Stand Your Ground". Florida is one of the few states that has laws regarding this, and it states that you no longer have an obligation to "avoid conflict" if you think someone means you harm in public.
Normally, in a perfect world, this would be used in the event of extreme situations where a person was attacked in public and there was some concern over whether he could flee or not. In practice, what it means is that someone can do what this guy did---Assault and kill someone else they don't like after feigning "concern" (Not even that: He said to the dispatcher prior to going after him that "They always get away".) over their personal well being, and then claim it was self defense after the fact.
Since the person you assaulted is dead, there's no way to counter the claim if it was done in private. Unless the police can prove it wasn't (And they really, really, really appear to not be trying.) he cannot under any circumstances be charged for the crime of murder.
Castle Doctrine has very little to do with this.
What this pertains too is a recently imposed law that removes one of the common sense laws of our society, "duty to flee", which has existed for quite a long time. It says that if you have the option to disengage from a confrontation, you must legally take it or risk being charged for assault/worse later on. Florida abolished this concept after much bitching (By right wingers, mostly.) over how people can't have the right to "defend themselves", and has as a result essentially given free reign to cowboy cops without badges everywhere, so long as they're smart about covering up their actions.
Fortunately, this guy was not smart about his actions, and circumstance played things out so that as long as a higher agency follows through on this, both him and probably members of the local government are going to be in deep shit later on.
Mind you, I don't believe Stand Your Ground laws even apply here. Certainly, anyone with an iota of sense looking the law itself over would realize that Stand Your Ground laws only apply when you do not instigate or seek out the confrontation. It seems the local law enforcement realizes this too after the fact, and is doing its damnedest to ensure that the case does not reach a prosecutor (By not making any arrests and tampering with the ability for more reputable agencies to do so.).
Like I said, this seems more an issue of a retarded law that goes counter to running a civil civilization being in effect, and, more important, a police department being massively corrupt and fingering random legislation that has nothing to do with what they claim as an excuse for the guys actions. Neither Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws protect this guy. Stand Your Ground might have protected him if he had tricked the kid into talking to him first, but since he went out of his way to hunt him down and confront him, it should not apply.
And anyone trying to actually bring it up in a legal case would probably get laughed out of the room. It would also be a severe embarrassment to the agencies that passed over doing their job on this. Which is probably at least part of the reason why the police are tampering with witnesses, too. If someone else makes the arrest, the ball is officially out of their park.
I can't watch/listen to the 911 videos. There's no way I'll be able to compose myself. I've heard that one has Trayvon begging for his life before the shot... And SOMEHOW this guy was found 100% innocent!? I... I'm getting worked up again.
Well, he wasn't "found innocent", I think only juries do that (or "not guilty" rather). THe local cops in their infinite wisdom just decided there "wasn't enough evidence to arrest him." Which is pretty obviously bullshit now.
Luckily it sounds like at least the state's attorney is involved now. Hopefully the feds pay attention to this case as well.
Sorry my blind rage caused my misinformation. Carry on. :P
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
To give you an idea on how open and shut this is if another more competent agency looks into it, here's another article.
This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something," Zimmerman tells the 911 operator. "He's just staring, looking at all the houses. Now he's coming toward me. He's got his hand in his waistband. Something's wrong with him."
Zimmerman described Martin as wearing a hoodie and sweatpants or jeans. He continues: "He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. Can we get an officer over here?"
"These assholes always get away," he says to the operator. Zimmerman is then heard giving directions to the dispatcher. "poo poo, he's running," Zimmerman says.
"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asks.
"Yes," Zimmerman responds.
"We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher says.
In other recordings, callers tell the 911 dispatcher that someone has been shot. One person tells the dispatcher that two guys were wrestling behind his back porch and that one of them was yelling for help. Then the male caller stammers in shock. "I'm pretty sure the guy is dead ... Oh, my God! ... The black guy looks like he's been shot and he's dead."
"The guy on top has a white T-shirt," another caller said.
"Is he on top of someone?" the operator asks.
"Mmmhmmm," a female caller responds.
Yet another caller says, "Someone was screaming 'Help! help! help!' Then I heard a gunshot."
One caller, a teenage boy, said that as he was walking his dog, "I saw a man laying on the ground that needed help. He was screaming."
Then, he told the operator, he heard a gunshot and said the screaming stopped.
Martin's family and their attorneys were allowed to hear the audio before it was made public.
"You hear a shot, a clear shot, that we can only assume is a warning shot," said Natalie Jackson, a family attorney. "Then a 17-year-old boy is begging for his life. Everything tells me that that was Trayvon Martin."
Tracy Martin, the teenager's father, broke down crying as he listened to the audio on Friday, the family lawyers said. "My son was crying for help, and he still shot him," Tracy Martin, the teenager's father said, according to Benjamin Crump, another family attorney.
Zimmerman is a shit stain who displayed open bias and an intent to hunt down, confront, and kill someone that he had no confirmed information on, to the point where he chased after a man he claimed was a criminal, after he started running (Not an action that is "standing your ground" by any means, since a confrontation had not started yet.). Even if you can't prove that the initial confrontation alone was cause for charges to be brought up against him, adding everything in the incident together paints a very nasty picture of the man. And if the FBI gets involved, as calls have gone out for them to do so, his ass is grass.
I love how the police tried to sow confusion about who was pleading for help, even though the kid had no weapons, so why in the hell would Zimmerman be wailing and pleading for his life if he was armed and at best may have 'thought the kid was armed'.
You dont even need to switch the races, just imagine it was two white guys, Zimmerman would be in jail. Although my anger isnt really for him, hes a shithead whackjob, its the police who utterly failed to do anything even remotely close to their job, and so brazenly and obviously just shrugged their shoulders and said 'shit happens', and then actively tried to cover it all up. They failed this young boy and his family, and they failed the entire community they are meant to protect.
I want the Feds to look into this. (Luckily, since the racist fuck used a gun, it gives them an in.) This is for two reasons:
1. I don't trust Governor Luthor.
2. I want the feds to try him, so that when his guilty ass gets convicted, they can ship him across the United States, far away from anyone who would ever give a fuck about him, to spend the remainder of his sad, pathetic life in exile.
I want the Feds to look into this. (Luckily, since the racist fuck used a gun, it gives them an in.) This is for two reasons:
1. I don't trust Governor LuthorVoldemort.
2. I want the feds to try him, so that when his guilty ass gets convicted, they can ship him across the United States, far away from anyone who would ever give a fuck about him, to spend the remainder of his sad, pathetic life in exile.
And fuck that. We've got the death penalty and we like using it.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Assuming it's as bad as it sounds like, it's pretty straightforward first degree murder (with hate-bias tacked on), right?
I want the Feds to look into this. (Luckily, since the racist fuck used a gun, it gives them an in.) This is for two reasons:
1. I don't trust Governor LuthorVoldemort.
2. I want the feds to try him, so that when his guilty ass gets convicted, they can ship him across the United States, far away from anyone who would ever give a fuck about him, to spend the remainder of his sad, pathetic life in exile.
And fuck that. We've got the death penalty and we like using it.
I'm against the death penalty in this case because it's too fucking easy. I don't want this fuck to get the easy needle. I want him to suffer in exile, far from anyone who would ever give a shit about his racist fucking ass.
I want the Feds to look into this. (Luckily, since the racist fuck used a gun, it gives them an in.) This is for two reasons:
1. I don't trust Governor LuthorVoldemort.
2. I want the feds to try him, so that when his guilty ass gets convicted, they can ship him across the United States, far away from anyone who would ever give a fuck about him, to spend the remainder of his sad, pathetic life in exile.
And fuck that. We've got the death penalty and we like using it.
I'm against the death penalty in this case because it's too fucking easy. I don't want this fuck to get the easy needle. I want him to suffer in exile, far from anyone who would ever give a shit about his racist fucking ass.
Yeah, I think if I was the judge that's what I'd come down on.
But as a an increasingly pissed off Floridian, it gives me some small sense of satisfaction to picture this twatdick sitting in old sparky. Though I guess we now use lethal injection.
Fuckin' racist pricks. How can the self-defense claim hold any water when we've got audio of a kid begging for his life moments before hearing a gunshot followed by complete silence? If the victim was anything but black Zimmerman would be rotting in a jail cell already.
Interesting article from the Orlando Sentinel: Link
About Florida's law:
Q: How did law enforcement respond to the law?
A: Prosecutors across the state opposed the law before it was enacted Oct. 1, 2005. In the following five months, there were at least 13 shootings in Central Florida where self-defense was claimed. Out of six men killed and four more wounded in the cases, only one was armed. Some Orlando-area police agencies simply stopped investigating shootings involving self-defense claims and referred them directly to state prosecutors to decide.
Q: The law lets people use force if they "reasonably believe" it's necessary to defend themselves. What defines "reasonable" in the perception of deadly threat?
A: Professor Scott E. Sundby of the University of Miami School of Law says that part of the law is included in many self-defense statutes. "The court leaves that amorphous question to the jury to decide," he said.
Deciding whether someone acted reasonably is also a critical part of the "the fact-intensive inquiry" prosecutors must make before deciding whether charges are warranted in a shooting, Sundby said. That is presumably what is happening in the Seminole-Brevard State Attorney's Office now.
Q: Can an unarmed person legally pose a deadly threat?
In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted. Former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer, a major force behind the law's passage, cited her own size and age in 2006 interview with the Sentinel about what she would do if confronted by a younger and larger aggressor.
"I'm 4-foot-11. I'm 67 years old," she said. "If you came at me, and I felt that my life was in danger or that I was going to be injured, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot you."
Q: What do critics of the law say?
Arthur C. Hayhoe, director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, calls the law "a right to commit murder."
"I predict this case is not going to be charged — it's going to be dismissed," he said of the case against Zimmerman. "Almost every case between two individuals where one was armed and the other was not is dismissed."
Even supporters of the law say it has its limits.
" 'Stand Your Ground' is not a 007 license to kill," said Sean Caranna, founder of Florida Carry, a group advocating gun owners' rights. He stressed that shooting in self-defense requires " a real fear your life is in danger."
hcurtis@tribune.com or 407-420-5257
Justifiable use of force
776.012 Use of force in defense of person. — A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Zimmermans father has said he is no racist and that there are plenty of black friends of his who say this and at least two black friends who see him as a mentor.
Zimmermans father has said he is no racist and that there are plenty of black friends of his who say this and at least two black friends who see him as a mentor.
None of them have said this themselves however.
Damnit, someone needs to tell The Onion to stop competing with reality to see who can be more satirical, because reality is really taking the competition seriously.
Zimmermans father has said he is no racist and that there are plenty of black friends of his who say this and at least two black friends who see him as a mentor.
None of them have said this themselves however.
"Holy cow. I mean, there are some black people that I don't even shoot! I am totally not a racist!"
If this holds up, I don't understand why people can't then just use "twas self-defense!" to justify anything.
Probably the fact that you'd be depending on the police and/or prosecutor to have your back? I mean, you can try to use the "twas-self defense" road to justify anything, but if it doesn't work it's off to prison for a very, very long time. Big risk. The whole point here is that what's happening is illegal. He broke the law, fairly clearly, and the authorities are failing to do anything about it.
Also, those who defend the duty to retreat, or at least those who act as though it's a "common sense" law, probably have little to no understanding of how important maintaining violence of action can be in a real-world confrontation. Opting to flee first instantly gives the upper hand to an assailant, which may well lead to you being even more fucked than you already were. Yes, in general it's best to avoid violent confrontations where possible. But having a jury, most of whom have likely never been in such a situation, decide after the fact from the safety of a courtroom whether it was possible is the kind of thing that leads to people hesitating or attempting to flee when force, immediate force, was absolutely necessary...getting people hurt or killed.
If this holds up, I don't understand why people can't then just use "twas self-defense!" to justify anything.
Probably the fact that you'd be depending on the police and/or prosecutor to have your back? I mean, you can try to use the "twas-self defense" road to justify anything, but if it doesn't work it's off to prison for a very, very long time. Big risk. The whole point here is that what's happening is illegal. He broke the law, fairly clearly, and the authorities are failing to do anything about it.
Also, those who defend the duty to retreat, or at least those who act as though it's a "common sense" law, probably have little to no understanding of how important maintaining violence of action can be in a real-world confrontation. Opting to flee first instantly gives the upper hand to an assailant, which may well lead to you being even more fucked than you already were. Yes, in general it's best to avoid violent confrontations where possible. But having a jury, most of whom have likely never been in such a situation, decide after the fact from the safety of a courtroom whether it was possible is the kind of thing that leads to people hesitating or attempting to flee when force, immediate force, was absolutely necessary...getting people hurt or killed.
And what's been happening in the Persistent Vegetative State is the counterpoint to your argument. Because the case we've been discussing isn't the only one. Here's one from December of last year.Here's more cases as well. The fact of the matter is that juries aren't stupid, and to try to defend this law by arguing that they are is gooseshit. The prior law only required the duty to retreat if one could do so safely - now, you don't have to retreat, all you have to do is fear for your safety, and you're free to go. Furthermore, there was no trend of prosecutors pushing against people using their arms in self defense because of a refusal to retreat - the Florida law was passed when the NRA needed a pick me up after their losses in the 90s. Justifiable homicide rulings tripled after the law was enacted.
I think it's pretty clear that these laws are not just solving a problem that never existed, but they are putting lives in danger.
Posts
In one of the articles I read, one of the witnesses scrapes together more brainpower than the entire police force:
It's amazing how soothing a gunshot can be.
The dispatcher told him to stay inside after he called the police saying there was a black kid in the neighborhood that "seemed suspicious" (Read: Blacks in my neighborhood! (It's more likely then you think.)). His response was to go get his gun hunt the kid down, and then start and escalate the situation to a (violent) confrontation that ended the kids life.
He essentially stalked the kid and then murdered him after disobeying direct orders from the dispatcher that would have resolved the situation peacefully. Nevermind the lack of due cause during the actual situation itself for leaving his home to hunt the kid down and put a few bullets in him.
Having lived in a state with Castle Doctrine laws, I can tell you that it doesn't say jack shit about confrontations outside the home that you start. Or just going directly out of your way to start a fight. Castle Doctrine does not at all apply to this mans defense unless local law enforcement wants to pretend that it does, and circumvent the written law to give this guy a free pass on murdering someone.
People bitch and moan around where I currently live about how they can't "defend themselves" without having to worry about getting taken to court by the local justice system if they're attacked outside the limitations of what Castle Doctrine protects you over, but this is where the alternative tends to lead.
The problem here is that they aren't using Castle Doctrine to nail him to the wall for what he did. Castle Doctrine does not, unless the law has been extensively modified to cover what he did in his state, cover for his actions. He went out of his way to start a confrontation, regardless of how the kid responded, thus the self defense claim is invalid.
Claiming self defense in this case is like someone claiming self defense after they went out, bought a gun, then shot up a restaurant. "But they served me bad food!" is not a justification for turning around and concocting a potentially premeditated plan to blow away the waiter and assistant manager. Neither is ignoring the orders of the representative of the authorities you called for your own safety to go and stalk and attack someone, when you verbally told a representative of the law that you thought they were a threat.
Castle Doctrine is great for covering you legally if someone attacks you within your own home or in a way that threatens your life. And indeed, it's something of a necessity to ensure fairness after the fact. That way you don't have some hillbilly cop trying to put a black man or woman in jail for three times the recommended sentence for blowing away a white home invader (Which has happened before.). This sounds like a case of Castle Doctrine being horribly perverted to cover some old white racist's ass.
Fun fact: The guy who shot and killed the kid was previously locked up for assault. Against a police officer, if I do recall. He's basically a redneck and/or racist nutjob that is playing the system to get out of a glory killing.
Basically all of this.
I hope that useless piece of shit Zimmerman is brought to justice.
Hearing that 9/11 tape, knowing that kid was just walking home with a bag of Skittles and Ice Tea for his brother, causing no trouble, and then that guy just ambushes him and executes him. God damnit this pisses me off so much.
Just remember that next time you walk anywhere: looking around means you're casing the joint.
edit: this also leads into my suspicion that Neighborhood Watches are made up of people who either A) are paranoid, or
Obama won the election, man.
Racism is over.
I expanded on my post after you quoted it a bit to explain why Castle Doctrine is actually a good thing for states that use it properly, and why states that don't have it tend to have a whole other set of racial issues.
But yeah, basically, it boils down to that. This guy committed a crime, and is trying to use protective legislation meant to guard people against legal or criminal court action after the a home invasion is dealt with, to justify playing around with hunting down some unsuspecting kid that was wandering through the neighborhood.
They should lock his ass up and throw away the key. Either he's batshit insane and incredibly manipulative, or he's violently racist (Much more likely.) and incredibly manipulative. Nothing of what's happened reeks of him being stupid so far.
The Irish are finally free!
I think it just assumes normal people wont overreact and can differentiate between threats and non-threats.
I guess we overestimated the American people.
It's only dangerous if mis-handled by the law enforcement types on a large scale.
Take this case for example: If it had been the white guy that had gotten killed after the black kid saw some maniac running at him with a gun, disarmed said maniac, and was forced to fire back at him, and Castle Doctrine wasn't in effect, then he would most likely be fucked given how the police are trying to tamper with the witnesses before the FBI and any sort of state sponsored investigation get on the scene and start investigating.
As it is, he could, at the very worst, appeal a criminal court decision, and any intelligent or even marginally competent judge could look at this and go "What the fuck just happened in our legal system here?" and throw out the case against him. If it even made it that far, which is unlikely.
Assuming Castle Doctrine covers out of home engagements in Florida (It does not in most states that I know of, hence the word Castle in Castle Doctrine. It was originally, I believe, conceived to defend personal property/yourself on said property.), this means that the lawyer could have a field day dragging the police through the mud before getting said kid off the hook. And even if it didn't, since the kid was not on explicitly private property, and was assaulted out of the blue, in a state with Castle Doctrine the mentality could be there to support him in court.
The problem isn't Castle Doctrine, it's the fact that local law enforcement is playing buddy-buddy with what's essentially a rent a cop wannabe. Unfortunately for all of them, it appears the FBI and state enforcement agencies far above their heads are taking a notice in this.
Oh no I don't have to worry, I'm not black.
Still doesn't really apply.
First of all, he sought out the conflict and made the call to the dispatcher presumably while in his home, so i'm reasonably certain that any prosecutor who wasn't completely retarded could nail this guy if he wanted too and the police did their job. That's not self defense. That's assault and murder.
Normally, the police would have to prove that his life was not in danger before he could be tried, but any prosecutor or someone even barely familiar with law could easily make the case that since he took the time to call a dispatcher, ignored the dispatchers orders, grabbed his gun, got in his car, and hunted the guy down to start a fight, that he's not protected by Stand Your Ground laws.
Nice to see that the cops got caught out, though. They claimed that the kid wasn't begging for his life before being sued and forced into releasing the tapes.
Hell, there's apparently a prosecutor in the SA thread saying that if this case came across his desk it'd be an open and shut case. Problem is the local police broke the law multiple times to keep it from getting that far. Not so much a case of legislation failing, but of corruption on a massive scale. When you're tampering with witnesses, lying about evidence as justification for not doing your job, and even refusing to release it, something like a law isn't going to stop you from finding justification.
Well, he wasn't "found innocent", I think only juries do that (or "not guilty" rather). THe local cops in their infinite wisdom just decided there "wasn't enough evidence to arrest him." Which is pretty obviously bullshit now.
Luckily it sounds like at least the state's attorney is involved now. Hopefully the feds pay attention to this case as well.
Except this wasn't a case of Castle Doctrine, which relates primarily to things like home invasions. If it was just under Castle Doctrine, even the police couldn't protect him.
This relates to a relatively new concept called "Stand Your Ground". Florida is one of the few states that has laws regarding this, and it states that you no longer have an obligation to "avoid conflict" if you think someone means you harm in public.
Normally, in a perfect world, this would be used in the event of extreme situations where a person was attacked in public and there was some concern over whether he could flee or not. In practice, what it means is that someone can do what this guy did---Assault and kill someone else they don't like after feigning "concern" (Not even that: He said to the dispatcher prior to going after him that "They always get away".) over their personal well being, and then claim it was self defense after the fact.
Since the person you assaulted is dead, there's no way to counter the claim if it was done in private. Unless the police can prove it wasn't (And they really, really, really appear to not be trying.) he cannot under any circumstances be charged for the crime of murder.
Castle Doctrine has very little to do with this.
What this pertains too is a recently imposed law that removes one of the common sense laws of our society, "duty to flee", which has existed for quite a long time. It says that if you have the option to disengage from a confrontation, you must legally take it or risk being charged for assault/worse later on. Florida abolished this concept after much bitching (By right wingers, mostly.) over how people can't have the right to "defend themselves", and has as a result essentially given free reign to cowboy cops without badges everywhere, so long as they're smart about covering up their actions.
Fortunately, this guy was not smart about his actions, and circumstance played things out so that as long as a higher agency follows through on this, both him and probably members of the local government are going to be in deep shit later on.
Mind you, I don't believe Stand Your Ground laws even apply here. Certainly, anyone with an iota of sense looking the law itself over would realize that Stand Your Ground laws only apply when you do not instigate or seek out the confrontation. It seems the local law enforcement realizes this too after the fact, and is doing its damnedest to ensure that the case does not reach a prosecutor (By not making any arrests and tampering with the ability for more reputable agencies to do so.).
Like I said, this seems more an issue of a retarded law that goes counter to running a civil civilization being in effect, and, more important, a police department being massively corrupt and fingering random legislation that has nothing to do with what they claim as an excuse for the guys actions. Neither Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws protect this guy. Stand Your Ground might have protected him if he had tricked the kid into talking to him first, but since he went out of his way to hunt him down and confront him, it should not apply.
And anyone trying to actually bring it up in a legal case would probably get laughed out of the room. It would also be a severe embarrassment to the agencies that passed over doing their job on this. Which is probably at least part of the reason why the police are tampering with witnesses, too. If someone else makes the arrest, the ball is officially out of their park.
Sorry my blind rage caused my misinformation. Carry on. :P
Zimmerman is a shit stain who displayed open bias and an intent to hunt down, confront, and kill someone that he had no confirmed information on, to the point where he chased after a man he claimed was a criminal, after he started running (Not an action that is "standing your ground" by any means, since a confrontation had not started yet.). Even if you can't prove that the initial confrontation alone was cause for charges to be brought up against him, adding everything in the incident together paints a very nasty picture of the man. And if the FBI gets involved, as calls have gone out for them to do so, his ass is grass.
You dont even need to switch the races, just imagine it was two white guys, Zimmerman would be in jail. Although my anger isnt really for him, hes a shithead whackjob, its the police who utterly failed to do anything even remotely close to their job, and so brazenly and obviously just shrugged their shoulders and said 'shit happens', and then actively tried to cover it all up. They failed this young boy and his family, and they failed the entire community they are meant to protect.
God fucking damnit Florida.
Or, well, racist PD in a particular Florida town I guess.
Anyways rage fuel.
1. I don't trust Governor Luthor.
2. I want the feds to try him, so that when his guilty ass gets convicted, they can ship him across the United States, far away from anyone who would ever give a fuck about him, to spend the remainder of his sad, pathetic life in exile.
And fuck that. We've got the death penalty and we like using it.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'm against the death penalty in this case because it's too fucking easy. I don't want this fuck to get the easy needle. I want him to suffer in exile, far from anyone who would ever give a shit about his racist fucking ass.
Yeah, I think if I was the judge that's what I'd come down on.
But as a an increasingly pissed off Floridian, it gives me some small sense of satisfaction to picture this twatdick sitting in old sparky. Though I guess we now use lethal injection.
In any other state, yes.
But we're talking about Florida, the diseased wang of America here.
As people have noted, they have in their laws an incredibly asinine "stand your ground" law.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
None of them have said this themselves however.
Damnit, someone needs to tell The Onion to stop competing with reality to see who can be more satirical, because reality is really taking the competition seriously.
"Holy cow. I mean, there are some black people that I don't even shoot! I am totally not a racist!"
There's just too much heat on it.
Probably the fact that you'd be depending on the police and/or prosecutor to have your back? I mean, you can try to use the "twas-self defense" road to justify anything, but if it doesn't work it's off to prison for a very, very long time. Big risk. The whole point here is that what's happening is illegal. He broke the law, fairly clearly, and the authorities are failing to do anything about it.
Also, those who defend the duty to retreat, or at least those who act as though it's a "common sense" law, probably have little to no understanding of how important maintaining violence of action can be in a real-world confrontation. Opting to flee first instantly gives the upper hand to an assailant, which may well lead to you being even more fucked than you already were. Yes, in general it's best to avoid violent confrontations where possible. But having a jury, most of whom have likely never been in such a situation, decide after the fact from the safety of a courtroom whether it was possible is the kind of thing that leads to people hesitating or attempting to flee when force, immediate force, was absolutely necessary...getting people hurt or killed.
And what's been happening in the Persistent Vegetative State is the counterpoint to your argument. Because the case we've been discussing isn't the only one. Here's one from December of last year. Here's more cases as well. The fact of the matter is that juries aren't stupid, and to try to defend this law by arguing that they are is gooseshit. The prior law only required the duty to retreat if one could do so safely - now, you don't have to retreat, all you have to do is fear for your safety, and you're free to go. Furthermore, there was no trend of prosecutors pushing against people using their arms in self defense because of a refusal to retreat - the Florida law was passed when the NRA needed a pick me up after their losses in the 90s. Justifiable homicide rulings tripled after the law was enacted.
I think it's pretty clear that these laws are not just solving a problem that never existed, but they are putting lives in danger.