Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

I heard the rep from Florida who helped write the legislation talk on BBC radio today. He seemed to feel the "stand your ground" law wouldn't be a defense because Zimmerman followed the guy, and initiated contact so he couldn't reasonably claim to have been threatened.

In the end it doesn't really matter. An kid is dead and nothing is going to help or make it better.

This whole "stand your ground" gun law business is precisely what empowers nutjobs like this.

I'd be okay with a law like that for your own property; if you're on your own property, and being threatened by someone who's also on your property, I don't think you necessarily have the requirement to back down or run away.

But on public streets? You should be legally required to do everything in your power to de-escalate a situation.

I think the local PD is protecting the guy because they know him -- he's called 9/11 so much that probably a lot of them have interacted with him, so they're assuming the white man they know is being truthful when he says the black man assaulted him.

Malor wrote:
This whole "stand your ground" gun law business is precisely what empowers nutjobs like this.

I'd be okay with a law like that for your own property; if you're on your own property, and being threatened by someone who's also on your property, I don't think you necessarily have the requirement to back down or run away.

But on public streets? You should be legally required to do everything in your power to de-escalate a situation.

I think the local PD is protecting the guy because they know him -- he's called 9/11 so much that probably a lot of them have interacted with him, so they're assuming the white man they know is being truthful when he says the black man assaulted him.

I feel like there has to be more than that. I'm sure every department has a nut job who calls in all the time. I doubt they would all bend over backwards to protect them.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

That's what I've been talking about, though I hadn't had the time to look it up. Thanks, Stone.

Thone.

Malor wrote:

But they didn't arrest him, and the cell phone disappeared..... I think he's got buddies on the force.

Exactly. I don't think basic racism would take it this far.

Malor, I know the point you are making, but the use of that word still felt ugly and gratuitous. I don't think it was necessary.

I'm not convinced this is entirely about race as much as it is about one knucklehead's obsession with power and a police department's combination of laziness and cowardice. I have no doubt that Florida has no shortage of racists or even racist police officers, but I tend to think that the far more likely explanation is that the local PD gave this asshat exactly enough rope to hang himself and now has to figure out a way not to go down with him.

Bear wrote:

I'm guessing if this douche bag doesn't get charged and convicted of something an actual hoodie wearing gansta is going to pop a cap in his ass..and chest...and head..

So. As a two-cents kinda thing, I'd caution against heading down this particular slippery slope. Yes, from our view on the sidelines it seems like this guy is guilty. Yes, if he did what it seems like he did, he's a scumsucking bastard.

But that doesn't mean he should die. What it means is he should be subjected to the fully armed and operational might of a fair and just legal system. Eye for an eye isn't a good path to head down.

Jayhawker wrote:

Malor, I know the point you are making, but the use of that word still felt ugly and gratuitous. I don't think it was necessary.

I felt the same on both counts.

farley3k wrote:

I heard the rep from Florida who helped write the legislation talk on BBC radio today. He seemed to feel the "stand your ground" law wouldn't be a defense because Zimmerman followed the guy, and initiated contact so he couldn't reasonably claim to have been threatened.

He clearly followed Trayvon Martin. I've seen reports on MSNBC that Zimmerman had a history of racial profiling, and some that knew him said he a fixation on African-Americans. Even Zimmerman's own call to 911 showed that he was following Martin, and the 911 dispatcher clearly told him "we don't want you to do that", yet Zimmerman persisted. He had a gun in hand, he was pursuing a black male and he felt empowered, and sought out the confrontation.

In the end it doesn't really matter. An kid is dead and nothing is going to help or make it better.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant here, but I believe pursuit of Zimmerman very much matters, and justice, however unfulfilling it may seem, very much matters. This is 2012, not 1955, and this kind of sh*t needs to stop, and yesterday. I don't just mean racial profiling, but this Southern good ol' boy sheriffin' that turns a blind eye when whites gun down blacks, but would throw a black man under the jail if the situation was reversed.

The very fact that Zimmerman wasn't tested for drugs or alcohol is obvious incompetance, and displays a lack of concern for the justice of a young black male. It's my understanding that D&A testing is standard procedure for these type events, and what we got in this case was a big ol' "meh".

For those that don't live in the south, and didn't grow up here, trust me, racism is very much alive and well.

Here's my take on the stand your ground law. Here in the Seattle area, a guy recently killed an actual criminal who was trying to steal his car. Not only did the thief refuse to stop or run away, but several witnesses said that the thief put his hand in his jacket as if he was drawing a gun. Despite the fact that the guy defending his property claimed he feared for his life, he's still getting 8-10 years in prison. Seattle is an extremely liberal city when it comes to gun laws, and I'm betting that even if someone broke into your home you might still face prison for shooting them.
So I can see why stand your ground is in theory a good law if it allows law abiding citizens more latitude in protecting themselves from criminals.

But this situation is beyond the pale. I don't understand how the law could apply in a case where the shooter was the instigator, the victim had committed no crime, and where there was no clear sign of danger. I also don't understand why the shooter wasn't tested for drugs/alcohol when the 911 dispatcher claimed he sounded intoxicated.

If a thief is trying to steal your car, you call the cops. You do NOT confront the criminal directly, and especially not if you have a gun. That's just a bad idea all around.

But they didn't arrest him, and the cell phone disappeared..... I think he's got buddies on the force.

edit: further speculation removed.

Jayhawker wrote:

Malor, I know the point you are making, but the use of that word still felt ugly and gratuitous. I don't think it was necessary.

Honestly, it bothered to me to write it. It IS ugly, but it was not gratuitous.... I gave it a fair bit of thought before posting.

Regardless, since I don't actually know that that's what they were thinking, I'll go ahead and edit the original post.

jdzappa wrote:

Here's my take on the stand your ground law. Here in the Seattle area, a guy recently killed an actual criminal who was trying to steal his car. Not only did the thief refuse to stop or run away, but several witnesses said that the thief put his hand in his jacket as if he was drawing a gun. Despite the fact that the guy defending his property claimed he feared for his life, he's still getting 8-10 years in prison. Seattle is an extremely liberal city when it comes to gun laws, and I'm betting that even if someone broke into your home you might still face prison for shooting them.
So I can see why stand your ground is in theory a good law if it allows law abiding citizens more latitude in protecting themselves from criminals.

But this situation is beyond the pale. I don't understand how the law could apply in a case where the shooter was the instigator, the victim had committed no crime, and where there was no clear sign of danger. I also don't understand why the shooter wasn't tested for drugs/alcohol when the 911 dispatcher claimed he sounded intoxicated.

I still am in favor of stand your ground laws, though I'd be open to refining them a bit and giving clearer guidelines to citizens. But those laws have nothing to do with what Zimmerman did. This sounds like straight-up murder from every bit of reporting we've gotten.

Malor wrote:

I think the local PD is protecting the guy because they know him -- he's called 9/11 so much that probably a lot of them have interacted with him, so they're assuming the white man they know is being truthful when he says the black man assaulted him.

Zimmerman isn't white. He's Hispanic.

In other news, people have been listening to Zimmerman's 911 call and in addition to his "those assholes always get away" comment he also might have called Martin a "f*cking coon."

I still don't get how the existence of a valid defence under Florida law precludes the guy getting arrested and charged.

"I didn't do it" is a valid defence as well. You still have to prove it to the legal system.

Maq wrote:

I still don't get how the existence of a valid defence under Florida law precludes the guy getting arrested and charged.

"I didn't do it" is a valid defence as well. You still have to prove it to the legal system.

Well, no, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that you did do it, beyond a reasonable doubt, but you still have to actually present that defence. I agree entirely that simply accepting the assertion without arrest and investigation is contrary to everything I understand about a reasonable and fair system of justice, for both victim and defendant.

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

I thought the only way to get away with shooting a guy without so much as a breathalyzer was to be the vice president.

Zinggggg!

But yeah, 16-year-old girlfriend. Charming.

Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Does "stand your ground" doctrine only cover firearms? Could you run the guy over with your car, for instance?

I hate to say this, but this situation and this particular nutbar is precisely what I think of every time someone tells me that Maryland should become a "shall issue" state for concealed weapons.

Perhaps he isn't representative, but with no mechanism for adjudicating the fitness of someone to carry or not, a statistically significant portion of folks will do exactly what this guy did: carry a gun looking for an opportunity to use it.

Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Because the statute in question has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Because the statute in question has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

You need to look at the entire set of statutes. 776.012 would apply to someone walking down the street, but you read all statutes together to see if anything else applies or creates exceptions to the basic provision.

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.

Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Because the statute in question has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

You need to look at the entire set of statutes. 776.012 would apply to someone walking down the street, but you read all statutes together to see if anything else applies or creates exceptions to the basic provision.

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.

And while I only briefly skimmed the provided links, I saw nothing in there that would seem to remotely fit Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

Nevin73 wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I saw an interesting comment on one of the CNN articles. The person said that under the "Stand your ground" doctrine, if they were walking down the street and saw George Zimmerman, they would feel threatened and could shoot him. I'm not sure I can really refute their argument.

Because the statute in question has nothing to do with feeling threatened.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...

You need to look at the entire set of statutes. 776.012 would apply to someone walking down the street, but you read all statutes together to see if anything else applies or creates exceptions to the basic provision.

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.

And while I only briefly skimmed the provided links, I saw nothing in there that would seem to remotely fit Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

If only he said "he's coming right at us!" on the 911 tapes. If only.

Nevin73 wrote:

And while I only briefly skimmed the provided links, I saw nothing in there that would seem to remotely fit Zimmerman's use of deadly force.

No, not when the kid wasn't armed with a weapon. I suppose Zimmerman said something on the order of, "He tried to take my gun away from me, and I figured he might shoot me with it" or "He was reaching into his belt and I thought he had a gun."

Neighbor defends Zimmerman "he's no Rambo"

This (white) guy said some interesting things ... like how the neighborhood is 50% white, 25% black, 25% Hispanic, but that "it used to be all white".

He says "Trayvon should have just explained who he was"

and that Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun, and said that "anytime you're carrying around a gun, you've got anger issues", to which the reporter asks "Do you think George had anger issues?" ... neighbor: "I think he had 'fed up' issues. He was mad as hell, and he wasn't going to take it anymore". Um, ok, I don't think that's going to help Zimmerman.

There were apparently 8 burglaries in the last few months in the neighborhood, and "most were committed by young black males" says the neighbor.

There you go, Trayvon, you shouldn't have been black!

And he should be ready to explain his skin colour to any gun toting fed up residents in the area.

Jeff-66 wrote:

There were apparently 8 burglaries in the last few months in the neighborhood, and "most were committed by young black males" says the neighbor.

...which is obviously justification for murder. Life for an eye, right?

Jeff-66 wrote:

Neighbor defends Zimmerman "he's no Rambo"

This (white) guy said some interesting things ... like how the neighborhood is 50% white, 25% black, 25% Hispanic, but that "it used to be all white".

He says "Trayvon should have just explained who he was"

and that Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun, and said that "anytime you're carrying around a gun, you've got anger issues", to which the reporter asks "Do you think George had anger issues?" ... neighbor: "I think he had 'fed up' issues. He was mad as hell, and he wasn't going to take it anymore". Um, ok, I don't think that's going to help Zimmerman.

There were apparently 8 burglaries in the last few months in the neighborhood, and "most were committed by young black males" says the neighbor.

There you go, Trayvon, you shouldn't have been black!

Now there's an interesting question. Can you charge someone with intent if they don't consider their victim to be human?

Of course. Of course you can. That wasn't a very interesting question after all. Sorry for the deception.