Ballotechnic wrote:Going forward it seems the wisdom of allowing neighborhood watch participants firearms should be questioned. Police train for years to deal with tense situations while carrying a firearm, for the average citizen these types of situations might just be too much. A tazer coupled with a go-pro camera should be enough to provide the necessary information, but keep participants from getting overzealous.
Sadly, it seems like Zimmerman's neighborhood was primed for this tragedy.
The police train for these situations and *still* get it wrong quite a lot.
True, but it may make some positive difference.
Given the difficulty of achieving a true color-blind judiciary and law enforcement in the US, one scenario I considered is a situation where the concept of "self defense" is eliminated as a form of justifiable homicide. What would effectively happen is that any loss of life, even in a justifiable defensive situation, would be criminalized. For example, Zimmerman's shooting of Martin could be ruled as justifiable, but the only effect would be to reduce the crime of saving his own life (at Martin's expense) from murder to manslaughter. The stark realization by any potential defendant that by saving their own life they do so with the understanding that they absolutely will go to jail could help to overcome some race-based deficiencies in our justice system. It seemed to me that some of our discussion participants were leaning toward this concept. I'd be curious to know what others think about this.
Here's my more socially acceptable outcome:
Setup: System changes: Color-blind judicial system, color-blind law enforcement
Setup: Specific actor changes: Zimmerman listens to dispatcher's suggestionPlay scenario: Zimmerman profiles and decides to pursue Martin. Z calls police (pretty sure he called their non-emergency line, not 911); Z told not to pursue. Z listens. Police meet up with Z, but M has made it home before police see him so the police cannot find the person Z called in.
Possible new outcome: Martin remembers event as the time he successfully got away from a creepy dude that tried to follow him home. Police remind Z that "walking while black" isn't a crime. Z remembers it as another time one of those "f*cking punks" got away.
One of my coworker illustrated to me what racial profiling looks like. He said if I locked myself out of my car and tried to slim Jim it, I could set off the car alarm until the battery died and all the cops would do is offer to call a wrecker.
If he locked himself out of his (he's black), just trying the door handle too many times would buy him his faceprint on his hood.
I think the ultimate answer to the question posed in the topic is simply "Because America is entirely too comfortable with young black men getting shot".
From the initial investigation, to the trial, to the entire discussion around the event, that seems to be the only answer.
One of my coworker illustrated to me what racial profiling looks like. He said if I locked myself out of my car and tried to slim Jim it, I could set off the car alarm until the battery died and all the cops would do is offer to call a wrecker.
If he locked himself out of his (he's black), just trying the door handle too many times would buy him his faceprint on his hood.
ABC did an experiment where they had someone in a park trying to get through a bike chain. They had a white man, a black man, and a white woman, all progress through increasingly blatant methods of attempting to steal the bike (hacksaw, bolt cutters, etc) and their script had they were supposed to admit the bike wasn't theirs if asked. Very few people interrupted the white guy and all but one couple actually tried to stop him, even after he acknowledged that it wasn't his bike. Most of the people that stopped just continued on their way. When the black man did the same thing, damn near everyone tried to stop him or call the cops on him. When the white woman had her turn, she got far fewer questioning people than the white man, and even had men offer to help her get through the chain.
Some insight into the jury's deliberations.
COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?
JUROR: If he didn’t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn’t stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.
COOPER: So is that a yes or — if he didn’t go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable —
JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I — I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson.
COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he’s learned a lesson from all of this?
JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.
Don't know about you but that sounds to me like she found him guilty but decided to cut him a break.
That's reasonable doubt though.
That's reasonable doubt though.
How so? "He shouldn't have done what he did, but I understand that he was frustrated [about things not specifically involved in this incident] and took things too far" sounds a lot more like she recognized that Zimmerman did wrong but that "it wasn't really his fault". That's not the same thing as reasonable doubt.
Stengah wrote:That's reasonable doubt though.
How so? "He shouldn't have done what he did, but I understand that he was frustrated [about things not specifically involved in this incident] and took things too far" sounds a lot more like she recognized that Zimmerman did wrong but that "it wasn't really his fault". That's not the same thing as reasonable doubt.
That is the same way I took it. I was furious after watching that interview, especially after the comment "If he didn't take it too far." You don't make a comment like that unless you believe he had taken it too far at some point. Why the hell would you find him innocent if you thought he had gone too far?
Talking about it with my wife. The over-riding issue is Stand your Ground and how it plays out in cases like this. Another big issue is untrained and armed civilians playing Dirty Harry.
Talking about it with my wife. The over-riding issue is Stand your Ground and how it plays out in cases like this. Another big issue is untrained and armed civilians playing Dirty Harry.
I.e. fcuking pants soiling holster sniffers.
Chumpy_McChump wrote:Stengah wrote:That's reasonable doubt though.
How so? "He shouldn't have done what he did, but I understand that he was frustrated [about things not specifically involved in this incident] and took things too far" sounds a lot more like she recognized that Zimmerman did wrong but that "it wasn't really his fault". That's not the same thing as reasonable doubt.
That is the same way I took it. I was furious after watching that interview, especially after the comment "If he didn't take it too far." You don't make a comment like that unless you believe he had taken it too far at some point. Why the hell would you find him innocent if you thought he had gone too far?
He took it further than they personally think is right, but think that it was ultimately legal due to the SYG law.
I wonder if the prosecution would have gotten a conviction if they had gone after manslaughter from the beginning? Did political pressure force them to overextend their reach to murder?
I wonder if the prosecution would have gotten a conviction if they had gone after manslaughter from the beginning? Did political pressure force them to overextend their reach to murder?
If you scroll back a bit to read the jury's Self Defense/Stand your ground instruction, it is still available when people insert themselves into the situation needlessly, initiate the confrontation, or start the fight. Traditional self defense does not work this way. It is not self defense if the person claiming self defense was instrumental in creating the confrontation/situation in the first place.
And among the most common form of Manslaughter is a fight, just like this, that ends in a shooting, a stabbing, a strangulation, etc. It has three elements, intentionally killing another person in a heat of passion and after provocation.
I wonder if the prosecution would have gotten a conviction if they had gone after manslaughter from the beginning? Did political pressure force them to overextend their reach to murder?
I think so. It's hard for me to believe that Zimmerman did nothing illegal that night. I think the state was so affected by the pressure that they charged him with the wrong things.
Nevin73 wrote:I wonder if the prosecution would have gotten a conviction if they had gone after manslaughter from the beginning? Did political pressure force them to overextend their reach to murder?
I think so. It's hard for me to believe that Zimmerman did nothing illegal that night. I think the state was so affected by the pressure that they charged him with the wrong things.
I think so too. The investigator initially recommended a charge of negligent manslaughter, but was doubtful that they had enough evidence to overcome a SYG defense. The State Attorney's office agreed and didn't file any charges until the public outcry. Then they went for second degree murder instead of the recommended charge.
Its absolutely 100% stand your ground. Self-Defense is an "affirmative defense", or at least it used to be. You hear all these talking heads even on MSNBC and they all just keep talking and acting like the "burden of proof" being on the prosecution to disprove Martins self-defense assertion is somehow the norm. It is not the "classic" / "common law" norm for self-defense. Classically if you assert self-defense you are shifting the burden of proving it was self-defense onto yourself (the defense), and not only did you have to prove that you were in fear of great bodily harm or death but that you also had no way to retreat from the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirma...
So SYG has made prosecutors think twice before taking a case where the defendant claims self-defense and the victim is dead because without some pretty concrete evidence its hard to disprove a self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt
People who are aware of the law in any given confrontation are going to shoot to kill if they draw their weapon
Judicial instructions / motions / rulings and jury rulings are all flavored with the SYG language, there was a SYG instruction given to the jurors in the zimmerman trial
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/1...
All you have to do is game out the implications of citizens acting as police, which is what SYG allows, and the conclusion is pretty scary, militia types running around acting as police with less oversight and more freedom than the cops themselves
And if for one second you think this isn't racial just look at this case where a black woman, with a master's degree, who has been battered (put in the hospital while pregnant by her husband who admits openly to the abuse), and is in her castle (so even the old "castle doctrine" style SYG laws that apply in your own house, i.e. no duty to retreat in your house), fires a warning shot and injures no one, asserts SYG in pre-trial, and GETS 20 YEARS!! in the same jurisdiction and the same DA as was prosecuting Zimmerman.
Nevin73 wrote:I wonder if the prosecution would have gotten a conviction if they had gone after manslaughter from the beginning? Did political pressure force them to overextend their reach to murder?
I think so. It's hard for me to believe that Zimmerman did nothing illegal that night. I think the state was so affected by the pressure that they charged him with the wrong things.
The state absolutely over charged Zimmerman and the results were disastrous.
I don't know if anyone has been listening to Anderson Cooper's interview with one of the juror's in the Zimmerman case, but based on that conversation it's obvious that manslaughter was considered at one point. So, yeah, had the prosecution focused their case on manslaughter and not left the jury with unanswered questions during final deliberations, this case could have had a very different outcome.
And if for one second you think this isn't racial just look at this case where a black woman, with a master's degree, who has been battered (put in the hospital while pregnant by her husband who admits openly to the abuse), and is in her castle (so even the old "castle doctrine" style SYG laws that apply in your own house, i.e. no duty to retreat in your house), fires a warning shot and injures no one, GETS 20 YEARS!! in the same jurisdiction and the same DA as was prosecuting Zimmerman.
You've got some misinformation there. She went to her ex-husband's "castle," even though she has a restraining order out against him, thinking he wasn't home and she could pick up some of her stuff. He was home though, and they got into an argument, she went to get her gun out of her car, then went back into the room he and their children were in before firing the warning shot. She absolutely doesn't deserve the sentence she got, but she's not as innocent as you make her out to be either.
Something else to keep in mind that has really gotten lost in the shuffle. Police did not begin an investigation until 6 weeks after the shooting. This was an uphill battle for the prosecution from day one, which was actually day 42.
And if for one second you think this isn't racial just look at this case where a black woman, with a master's degree, who has been battered (put in the hospital while pregnant by her husband who admits openly to the abuse), and is in her castle (so even the old "castle doctrine" style SYG laws that apply in your own house, i.e. no duty to retreat in your house), fires a warning shot and injures no one, asserts SYG in pre-trial, and GETS 20 YEARS!! in the same jurisdiction and the same DA as was prosecuting Zimmerman.
Race had nothing to do with it. As crazy as it sounds, firing a "warning shot" instead of shooting to kill will pretty much disqualify the shooter from claiming SYG. Now had she shot and missed her target, that would have been okay. Also, she could have simply displayed the weapon to discourage an attack. However, by firing a warning shot in the air, she simply set herself up for prison. That's not race. It's just the way the law is written.
You've got some misinformation there. She went to her ex-husband's "castle," even though she has a restraining order out against him, thinking he wasn't home and she could pick up some of her stuff. He was home though, and they got into an argument, she went to get her gun out of her car, then went back into the room he and their children were in before firing the warning shot. She absolutely doesn't deserve the sentence she got, but she's not as innocent as you make her out to be either.
From what I understand this is not as binary as it has been made out this was a married couple with a newborn baby. I think she had moved out of that house 2 months prior but I don't think their assets had been officially divided in a divorce agreement between the two (correct me if I am wrong this is "heard" information). And the fact remains she didn't actually shoot him which was legally a mistake under SYG since he couldn't have then testified that she left the house got the gun from her car and came back in the house. She was also arrested immediately. Not saying she wasn't guilty of a crime but her handling as opposed to Zimmerman is a clear demonstration of the difference of a Black Person's travel through the system goes. And 20 years for a warning shot is beyond ridiculous.
Another example of why mandatory sentencing is a huge mistake. The judge had no leeway at all to reduce the sentence. That's not race, it's just the law.
Race had nothing to do with it. As crazy as it sounds, firing a "warning shot" instead of shooting to kill will pretty much disqualify the shooter from claiming SYG. Now had she shot and missed her target, that would have been okay. Also, she could have simply displayed the weapon to discourage an attack. However, by firing a warning shot in the air, she simply set herself up for prison. That's not race. It's just the way the law is written.
"That's not race. It's just the way the law is written." The entire point that I and others are making is that the law itself is violating peoples civil rights. From SYG to mandatory minimums to drug laws, stop and frisk, these are all tools of institutional racism.
Slavery itself was legal, jim crow was legal, I guess since they were legal that means they weren't racist.
"That's not race. It's just the way the law is written." The entire point that I and others are making is that the law itself is violating peoples civil rights. From SYG to mandatory minimums to drug laws, stop and frisk, these are all tools of institutional racism.
The widely different mandatory minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine are racist. Stop and frisk laws are racist.
Analysis of homicides, however, doesn't quite show that Stand Your Ground laws are racist. There is a clear bias whereby whites who kill blacks are far more likely to have those killings to be found justifiable, but there simply isn't enough data to say that it's racist. That's because there were only 25 examples of whites killing blacks in the five years of FBI homicide data analyzed.
The only thing we know about SYG now is that states that have those laws report about 8% more homicides than states who don't.
And tacking on years to a sentence because you shot a gun during the commission of a crime? Not really racist at all.
ringsnort wrote:Race had nothing to do with it. As crazy as it sounds, firing a "warning shot" instead of shooting to kill will pretty much disqualify the shooter from claiming SYG. Now had she shot and missed her target, that would have been okay. Also, she could have simply displayed the weapon to discourage an attack. However, by firing a warning shot in the air, she simply set herself up for prison. That's not race. It's just the way the law is written.
"That's not race. It's just the way the law is written." The entire point that I and others are making is that the law itself is violating peoples civil rights. From SYG to mandatory minimums to drug laws, stop and frisk, these are all tools of institutional racism.
Slavery itself was legal, jim crow was legal, I guess since they were legal that means they weren't racist.
I'm pretty sure what ringsnort was getting at is that it wasn't racism as in the system was treating people differently because of their skin color, and that a white couple would have had the same outcome.
Not saying she wasn't guilty of a crime but her handling as opposed to Zimmerman is a clear demonstration of the difference of a Black Person's travel through the system goes. And 20 years for a warning shot is beyond ridiculous.
Not going to get any argument from me on that count, I've just seen her case misrepresented to be "completely innocent woman gets 20 years" quite a bit.
Actually, CNN just posted some Florida statistics on success rates for a SYG defense. The success rate is pretty much the same for both white and black defendants, I believe 61% and 63% respectively.
Apologies if my numbers are off by a point or two. Lots of multitasking going on today.
And tacking on years to a sentence because you shot a gun during the commission of a crime? Not really racist at all.
I agree with OG_slinger.
However, while a given law may not be inherently racist, exactly how that law is enforced can absolutely have a racial bias.
Daniel Adkins
Pages