Muzman on 14/7/2013 at 03:56
re: above. Exactly. His initial interview was little more than a statement. His version of events was not really questioned until much much later (since for a long time he was not going to be charged at all and without public outcry probably wouldn't have been).
As boneheaded as the whole stand your ground thing is, I do think you might be able to have such a law if certain precautions were taken like a minimum standard of investigation regardless (or a much higher one than there is)
No doubt the people who dreamt this up would complain about "innocent citizens being treated like criminals". Heaven forbid people take killing another person seriously.
Renzatic on 14/7/2013 at 04:09
I believe one of the major points for them not pressing the issue is that Zimmerman did come into the station beaten up a goodly bit. It was very obvious he had been in a fight, and the evidence did seem to point towards a clear cut case of self defense.
I'm not 100% sure of exactly what went down at the police station after the fact, but I have heard that they did a little more than just ask him a couple of questions, shake his hand, then send him on his way.
...though in a perfect world, even in what seems to be self defense at first glance, the police should go out of their way to prove exactly what happened in a situation where a life is taken.
Phatose on 14/7/2013 at 06:42
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Right. The only thing we know for a fact is that two people handled a tense situation in the worst possible way. Zimmerman should have never left his car, and Martin shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman out of anger (which we have to assume happened because we don't have evidence to the contrary). Since the entire case of murder vs. self defense hinges on who accosted who first, a fact that exists in a deadzone where only one of the two persons involved is alive to tell the tale, there's no way to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. He was destined to walk from day one.
We don't have to like every outcome of every case, but the system works this way for a very good reason.
Does murder vs self defense actually hinge on that though? I mean, if you walk up to a guy and punch them and they punch you back, that's obvious assault for you and self defense for them. If you punch them, and then they start beating you to death with a brick though, I suspect if you then shoot them it's self defense on your part. Still assault on your part, but not murder.
Renzatic on 14/7/2013 at 07:15
Quote Posted by Phatose
Does murder vs self defense actually hinge on that though? I mean, if you walk up to a guy and punch them and they punch you back, that's obvious assault for you and self defense for them. If you punch them, and then they start beating you to death with a brick though, I suspect if you then shoot them it's self defense on your part. Still assault on your part, but not murder.
It kinda does, because self defense assumes no wrongdoing on your part. Your first example would be a clear cut case of self defense. You punched the guy, and he responded in kind. Of course you can very easily overdo it and incur charges even if you're not the aggressor. Like I push you in a threatening manner, and you immediately pull out a gun and shoot me in the face. Just because I pushed you doesn't equate to you being in a life or death situation, and would probably be found guilty of manslaughter (possibly even Murder 2 depending). It's all about
necessary force.
Your latter example would be manslaughter, no doubt. Even though you ended up fearing for your life, you still instigated the situation. Your irresponsibility in the matter is the core issue of contention. If you didn't start the fight, the other guy wouldn't have gone off the deep end, and you wouldn't have had a need to defend yourself.
...or at least this is the way it should. The Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and Texas practically ignore responsibility, and only consider the threat to your life. In a way, it's created a legal precedence where the person left alive is innocent of all wrongdoing regardless of their involvement in the situation.
If you think of it this way, then, if all things were equal, Trayvon Martin had just as much of a right to Stand His Ground as Zimmerman did, even if he wasn't directly threatened before the fact and decided to throw the first punch (which is something we have no proof of). The presence of the gun alone could've been used as justification. If he beat Zimmerman to death, then hey...he was Standing His Ground in a potentially life threatening situation. Same as Zimmerman shooting Martin, even if he did push him around and antagonize him to the point he struck back (which, once again, is something we have no proof of). All that matters is you felt the need to defend yourself.
This should give you an idea of just how fucked up SYG laws are.
gunsmoke on 14/7/2013 at 09:39
Why make it a pissing match? They're both fucked for their own reasons, it isn't a contest.
Gryzemuis on 14/7/2013 at 09:51
The real scary part is that is seems that half of the American population believes Zimmerman did nothing wrong. And that he had justice (both law and moral) on his side when he shot a 17-year old unarmed kid.
At least, that's what it seems like after looking at comments on the web.
faetal on 14/7/2013 at 10:49
The real scary part is any situation where civilians pursue other people while carrying firearms and the intent to use them.
Going after intruders with baseball bat = easy visual way to scare them off + potential means of upping your chances should they attack. Going after a person walking through your neighbourhood with a concealed gun? 100% more sinister and dangerous.
Jason Moyer on 14/7/2013 at 11:43
To me it boils down to this: Regardless of anything that happened before it escalated to violence, if someone is on top of you and repeatedly punching you in the face, you should be able to respond with whatever force you feel is necessary to protect your life. People can say "omg he was unarmed" all they want, if someone is doing that to you it doesn't matter if they have a weapon, your life is in jeopardy. Is Zimmerman a racist scumbag? Probably. Being a racist scumbag isn't even on the same level as physically assaulting someone with intent to do serious harm, and I think once you cross that line you're no longer capable of being a victim.
