{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/7/2013 3:48:11 AM
7
I wondered if this would become a topic.
Believe it or not, this comment is worth at least skimming.
Honestly it's hard to tell, the weird thing is this is really about the legitimacy of [i]Stand Your Ground[/i] and/vs [i]Castle Doctrine[/i], not innocence or guilt.
Stand Your Ground laws do not require citizens to warn their potential attacker, their is no [i]Duty to Retreat[/i]. In effect I could lure someone into a situation, kill them, claim self defense, and potentially get away with it if no witness survived.[spoiler]A couple things to take into account: Zimmerman followed Martin after being ordered not to; the part of his story regarding how the altercation began is jumbled (essentially he claims he was head-on pushed by Martin but resultingly ended up moving [b]forward[/b]); also he claims to have drawn his weapon and shot Martin in the chest during the climax of the fight.
Imagine you're laying down, you draw and, with your elbow against the ground, have to angle your weapon roughly 90 degrees to shoot for the chest.[/spoiler]Zimmerman made no attempt to keep Martin alive (instead he tried restraining him... But doesn't mention when the body stopped moving), nor to instead wound him, nor to actively prevent the altercation from occurring, nor to cooperate with the 911 operator.
He seems like a dolt, to be completely honest. Maybe he was just ignorant of his actions and the severity of the situation. Still, does ignorance grant innocence?
There are no really reliable witnesses... And Zimmerman is arguably vague with details. Can anything be argued that the innuendo of his actions should guarantee a conviction?
The verdict is a bit tricky.
I doubt an actual, responsible gun toting BA, like Recon over here, would have reacted to the situation in the same way Zimmerman did. Since not all of us can haz Recon (this needs a bit of lightheartedness), a change of law is order to deter this, ignorant or otherwise, type of exploitation of legislation.
English
-
The defense declined to cite the "Stand your ground" statute as a part of their defense in pre-trial motions. So the case is NOT at all based or reliant on that law. They are using self-defense statutes to justify the actions of the defendant. Not stand your ground. I am a former resident of FL, and when I was there, the SYG law was not even under consideration. For me and my training, the "duty to retreat" was taught to me as both a legal and an ethical obligation. I took it to heart and that is why I withdraw and retreat from confrontations, especially if/when I am armed. Not so much because the law says so (though that is important that it did), but because if I ever have to use lethal force, I need to know (for my own peace of mind and self-respect) that I did absolutely everything possible to avoid or withdraw from a confrontation that could lead to someone being killed. In this case, both parties had opportunities to avoid this, neither availed themselves of those chances. Martin: Did he have a right to be where he was? Yes. Did he have a right to be doing what he was? Yes. Did he have a right to feel at risk because he was being observed and followed by "some creepy ass cracker"? Yes. Did he have a right to approach and challenge the person who he believed was following him? Yes. Zimmerman: Did he have a right to be where he was? Yes. Did he have a right to be doing what he was? Yes. Did he have a right to be suspicious of a young man, walking through back yards in the rain at night? Yes. Did he have a right to even approach and challenge the person who he believed was a stranger to the neighborhood? Yes. Now for both of them: Could either have walked away and retreated from the other? Did one/both of them choose to not do so and instead confront the other? Could either of them just left it at a verbal exchange when they came face to face? Because if either of them had taken ANY of those options, we wouldn't have a crime. Someone went from talking to physical combat. I don't know who. The jury has to decide that. But the fact that each was (from their own perspective) "not doing anything wrong", and they both came face-to-face, even then it could have just been a "do you live around here?" question and answer. But it wasn't. The person who reacted physically is the one that started the commission of criminal acts that within seconds, resulted in the use of lethal force by one of the two people there. And that is why I will retreat, withdraw, even run away screaming like a little girl as long as I have a chance. If I have no escape, if my life (or the life of another) makes it impossible for me to withdraw, that is the only situation where I will act. Because, as this case demonstrates, once things get hairy? They can go from bad to worse in a second. Which is why it's better to avoid, withdraw, talk, reason, apologize, anything.... Neither man took any of the various potential "off-ramps" and when it came to the moment that talking wasn't making things better, someone made a REALLY bad decision. Who? I don't know. The jury will decide that.
-
[quote]And that is why I will retreat, withdraw, even run away screaming like a little girl as long as I have a chance. If I have no escape, if my life (or the life of another) makes it impossible for me to withdraw, that is the only situation where I will act.[/quote]Exactly. I had actually researched the case when it occurred and gave a speech for my Public Speaking requirement. I didn't know they weren't using SYG as a defense (that's wise of them). Thanks for telling me that, I need to will myself to wade through all of the sensationalist bullshit and decipher the news about this case, so I honestly haven't been keeping up with it much. I've got some reading to do. I just want to make it clear I'm not arguing over who did what. I did, however want to make it clear that someone of good character will recognize they hold they deadly force and should act responsibly, exactly how I know you have acted. That is why I'm so distressed by Zimmerman's lack of control. Like you said, plenty of chances to neutralize the situation were there, I'm just appalled by Zimmerman's incompetence.[spoiler]If I may satiate my ego a bit; I actually confronted someone I literally caught attempting to break into my friends car (there was a rash of burglary in my neighborhood a couple years back) and followed the guy until he ended up hiding, sitting in the small corner of my property the in wooded. I asked him what he was doing, blah blah, where he lived, why he was hiding in the woods. We both made some innuendo back and forth, him asking me if I had a gun, me setting my skateboard on the little table in the clearing. Eventually he left, apparently to go home. The burglary stopped. Should I have hinted at using violence? Probably not, but I felt the gun bit was a bluff. Did I intend to trade his life for mine if he happened to be armed? Absolutely not but obviously that was a risk I was stupidly willing to take, my intent was to scare him, though, not draw him into an altercation and kill him (not saying Zimmerman did that).[/spoiler]The difference between my actions and Zimmerman's are few and far between however one major point is that I was not carrying a loaded gun and I was on my property. If he really felt so threatened, why not draw his weapon as a last resort, as a warning, as a way to put his cards on the table and diffuse the situation? Preferably [i]after[/i] saying something other than "no I don't have a problem."
-
[quote]I just want to make it clear I'm not arguing over who did what. I did, however want to make it clear that someone of good character will recognize they hold they deadly force and should act responsibly, exactly how I know you have acted.[/quote] I act the way that I act out of ethics and the law. In the case of carrying concealed and how I approach it, my ethical position is a higher and more strict code of conduct than the law. I am saying that in the Martin/Zimmerman action, no one had done anything "wrong" or "illegal" up until the very moment that one person chose violence. Zimmerman carrying a firearm didn't break any laws. The mutual suspicion and fear of hostility that both Zimmerman and Martin had for each other, is not illegal (to have to to have caused it in another). Even the fact that one of them, or both of them, confronted each other with "what the hell is going on here?" That's not illegal, it happens between people every day. Who made it physical? That is the only criminal act in this whole case. If Martin struck first, then Zimmerman has a valid self-defense argument. If Zimmerman struck first, then he does not. Either could have gone home at any moment. Walked or ran. One knew the police were on their way. One of them thought that it was a me-vs-him scenario with no help coming. Someone chose to use their hands/fists instead of their head/voice. We all know who ended it. [quote]If he really felt so threatened, why not draw his weapon as a last resort, as a warning, as a way to put his cards on the table and diffuse the situation? Preferably after saying something other than "no I don't have a problem."[/quote] Drawing your weapon when there is no immediate and real threat to life and limb is a crime. It's called menacing and is a form of aggravated assault. Part of the CCW training is learning that your firearm is not there "to win or end arguments". It has only one legal use. To stop someone who has shown that they intend and are capable of causing you grave harm (either putting you into the hospital, or the grave). Not to kill them, not to wound them, to [u]stop[/u] them. If Zimmerman was following that part of the law, and based on the fact that he was injured and Martin was not (up to the moment of the gunshot), it's clear that he was losing the altercation and the damage may have continued. The question still remains however. Who initiated the violence? A trickier question, and one that will have more varied answers (depending on the views of the person being asked) is "putting yourself into the shoes of either person that night, who do you think would be more likely to have crossed the line from talking to physical conflict?" It's the only REAL question in this case.
-
Could he have drawn his weapon after the violence began? To me it seems a bit callous to keep your gun holstered until you feel you [i]must[/i] end someone's life. Was he within his rights not to? Sure but was it the right thing to do? No, not from my perspective. Was it right to play stupid and not warn the person that the police were on the way? Depends on whether Zimmerman was concerned about Martin "getting away" apparently like they always do, or if he was concerned with avoiding a potentially deadly situation. I'm not arguing the law, they were both within their rights, like you said, up until the violence was initiated. My problem is with Zimmerman not doing a damn thing to prevent the altercation before or during the fight, verbally or by showing force, repsectively. All under the protection of the absence of his duty to retreat from a public area, that's why [i]I[/i] think these laws encourage gun violence. I don't think you're actually asking me to answer but I will anyway. I think Martin is the more likely to initiate the conflict, mainly because I'm biased and I don't believe Zimmerman didn't know he could kill him if he was not the aggressor. The fact is we don't know but we do know Zimmerman's story is downright jumbalaya.[spoiler]He literally stated that Martin grabbed the gun between the hammer and grip, yet there are no fingerprints or DNA from Martin on the weapon. Conversely, an eyewitness stated he never saw Zimmerman's head get slammed on the cement. He also saw arm movements going downward, not punching, but there is none of Zimmerman's DNA on Martins hands. This whole case is -blam!-ed.[/spoiler]I still don't understand why he told Hannity he had no prior knowledge of SYG, when it was covered in his law enforcement classes. I guess because it wasn't in the course curriculum and he wasn't technically obligated to remember any of it? Is loss of memory like that covered in the fifth amendment or would that point to him being a mad dog vigilante (best way I can describe how that makes him look) trying to lawfully decline the SYG hearing and avoid losing immunity? I'm not a lawyer but can say that it's not hard to put your cards on the table. When I have been threatened by people I always have attempted to diffuse the situation first, leave, and allow them to strike first, not because I'm trying to get a self defense suit out of it but because I am not looking to fight. On a backpacking course trip, I had a kid my age, who was in the process of becoming a cop, try to wrestle me to the ground because I went swimming with a girl who showed him no interest (she did not even go in the water and literally followed me regardless of my want to be alone, she was a little annoying). I don't take too kindly to people who have problems with authority and thus, to circumvent them, become authority figures. Reasonable doubt has to be disproved but the evidence and lack of key witnesses make it nearly impossible to prove Zimmerman's state of mind can overrule the possibility he feared for life and limb, which is kind of funny considering he had taken MMA courses. Like I said, I'm appalled by his incompetence and I'm appalled we might continue to allow people who have shown such poor quality obtain positions of authority. Again, for the record, I want you to know that I respect you for a number of reasons and meant this only as an exchange of ideas. I know I can unintentionally come off as a little brusque or acerbic so, given the nature of our discussion, I felt an explanation was warranted.
-
[quote]Could he have drawn his weapon after the violence began? To me it seems a bit callous to keep your gun holstered until you feel you must end someone's life. Was he within his rights not to?[/quote] Based on testimony, he did draw the weapon after the violence began. When he was on his back and Martin was straddling him, and he states that the weapon was seen and he thought that Martin might (or was) attempting to reach for it. The one shot (and this is where I see an important point) was fired at contact. According to the forensics experts, the muzzle was against (or incredibly close) to Martin's chest. If Zimmerman was operating with "callous or depraved indifference to life", I ask myself "why just one shot?" IMO, if Zimmerman "was looking to kill someone" (which the charge of second degree murder implies) why not fire more? If he was in fear for his own life/safety and a single shot ended that threat/fear, then he did something that a LOT of fatal shootings do not. He stopped at one, when the threat/danger stopped. [quote]Like I said, I'm appalled by his incompetence and I'm appalled we might continue to allow people who have shown such poor quality obtain positions of authority.[/quote] The only person who "crossed the line" into a crime is the person who initiated the violence. Up until that moment, neither person (despite their fears, worries, preconceptions, or thoughts) had done anything wrong or criminal. BOTH had the ability, the opportunity, and equal "obligation" to defuse, withdraw or refuse to engage in violence. NEITHER took any of those multiple "off-ramps" that were available to them. But a person, either person, is still within their rights, not doing anything wrong, and not doing anything criminal, even if they had still been shouting at each other when the police finally arrived. The person who is responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin is the person who chose to strike instead of any of the many better and legal options available to them. If Martin threw the first punch, then he is responsible for initiating a criminal and violent act that resulted in his death. If Zimmerman threw the first punch, then he is responsible. We heard a lot of the injuries to Zimmerman's head and face (which can set up the answer to the question of whether or not he felt he was in grave danger). I don't recall any testimony as to whether his hands/knuckles had any scuffs, scratches, bruises or injuries (though there were such markings on Martin's hands/knuckles). If I was on the jury, that would be a crucial point in attempting to determine who cross the line into violence. Zimmerman attended MMA classes, Martin documented his participation in a "fight club" group. Like I said, issues like that can help someone decide who might have been "more likely to throw down", but I prefer evidence over supposition and making guesses. [quote]Again, for the record, I want you to know that I respect you for a number of reasons and meant this only as an exchange of ideas. I know I can unintentionally come off as a little brusque or acerbic so, given the nature of our discussion, I felt an explanation was warranted.[/quote] No worries, we're having a conversation. I can deal with brusque and acerbic, and you are being neither.
-
Ok cool, I'm glad you're also considering it a conversation.[quote]Based on testimony, he did draw the weapon after the violence began. When he was on his back and Martin was straddling him, and he states that the weapon was seen and he thought that Martin might (or was) attempting to reach for it.[/quote]I was thinking more like immediately after he got pushed.[quote]The one shot (and this is where I see an important point) was fired at contact. According to the forensics experts, the muzzle was against (or incredibly close) to Martin's chest.[/quote]My problem with this is that he stated Martin's knees were in contact with his armpits, with the gun holster between the center of his back and hip. To me it just seems like a lot of unnecessary movement if you were trying to get a shot off (I have no experience whatsoever with real pistols), in fact I have to [i]wonder[/i] if there could have been a moment when he pulled the gun and put it to Martin's chest that the fighting stopped. The one gunshot being such a clean kill disturbs me, I can't imagine after being beaten so badly that then he managed to have the presence of mind to pull off a kill shot like that after making such a roundabout draw. That is the part that concerns me, coupled with his timely amnesia regarding SYG and other [i]non-curriculum[/i] self defense topics taught in that class he was an "A student" in; him being a criminal justice major; and his waiving of a SYG hearing, makes it all very suspicious. Does it disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Not really. I'd rather not sound so biased but when I put all of this together I can see a fishy pattern and Zimmerman should be fully capable of telling [i]his[/i] side of the story. But I can see a reasonable doubt begin to form and honestly I want answers. The fact that Zimmerman's head wounds "are so minor" and the injury on his face could have come from a single self inflicted punch. His reference to Martin as a "-blam!-ing punk" indicating ill will. All I can say is thank god he had a bad credit report and couldn't become a cop.
-
And they discussed the Stand Your Ground Laws in his college course to become a future police offer several times. For him to say that he didn't know was an obvious lie.
