Trayvon Martin.

that was sort of the point i was trying to make but no one on the opposite side seems to be ready to talk about it. i can't respect that.
i tend to be more leery of 'people being killed unjustifiably in ambiguous circumstances.'
but then, i suppose it all comes down to how you really value the lives of other people in relation to your own.
it's the classic debate between conservative and liberal in its purest sense.

 

I think it depends on the framing as well mixedmedia. The exact same problem can be reframed to: Is it better to occasionally wrongly convict someone who was defending themselves because the evidence was not clear or to occasionally fail to convict someone who was not defending themselves in ambiguous circumstances. The framing you (general you, not specifically you mm) choose to argue from makes all the difference in making the case for your viewpoint.

I think it is clear that this one of those circumstances that does not admit of a practical solution to satisfy everybody. Traditionally, in the US, the debate has been framed the way I've stated in this post. I think it becomes a question of literally weighing how often we find ourselves in a particular circumstance and how much we're willing to put up with one or the other. There will always be people who say that a body count, no matter how high, is worth a single wrongful conviction and there will always be people that say there is no amount of wrongful convictions worth a single body. I don't know how you reconcile those two viewpoints.

 

I have some things to say in answer to this but it's too many words for tapatalk. For later.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk

 

Is it better to occasionally wrongly convict someone who was defending themselves because the evidence was not clear?

Than for someone to die without justice? Absolutely. I would like to see the argument that defends such an idea. Like I stated previously, I am of the mind that if you are person who owns a gun for protection or, especially, one who carries a gun on their person, you should understand that shooting someone with it comes along with the risk of going to prison. It comes along with a thorough dissection of what happened and, ideally, a jury trial. I think killing someone should rarely result in one just walking away. The only circumstance in which I could even conceive of such of a thing would perhaps be when the accused perpetrator is facing an armed, aggressive suspect among neutral witnesses. We can't turn every gun owner in the country into an ad hoc police force. We have enough trouble assessing the actions of the ones we've got.

To occasionally fail to convict someone who was not defending themselves in an ambiguous circumstance?

This happens all the time. Our justice system is not perfect. It does what it can with the evidence that it can gather. I don't ask for more than that, but at least that. Plus, I'm not sure how that applies to the efficacy of SYG.

I find it very easy to reconcile the two viewpoints. I have yet to see someone come out and state the opposite in plain English. And I can understand why it is difficult.
--- merged: Mar 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM ---

umm, what are you listening to?

 

oh, that was Hektore, not me

 

This situation is not ambiguous. Zimmerman was not standing his ground, Zimmerman was on the hunt! Just because his prey may have responded with an attack does not change the fact that Zimmerman initiated and was the proximate cause of the violence that followed.

In addition, if there are any ambiguities it is because of an incompetent or corrupt police investigation. If Zimmerman was being beat mercilessly, the police should have photos of the injuries. If a person is on the ground being beat mercilessly to the point where they felt they were going to be beat to death, I would think hospital care would have been needed. Where was Travon shot. Had the merciless beating ended (meaning no threat of life) and then Zimmerman shot (possibly a revenge killing). Did Zimmerman pull out his gun while on the ground being mercilessly beaten and shot (I would love to see how that is described and explained). Did Zimmerman pullout his gun upon realizing a crazed thug was charging and about to give him a merciless beating??? So many questions...that have already been answered...but kept under wraps for some reason.

At this point officials will never have credibility if Zimmerman walks, people are going to assume officials constructed a case to get Zimmerman off.

 

But it sounds like the police wanted to press charges but the prosecutor wouldn't let them.

 

The night of the incident police had the authority to make an arrest. They did not.
The night of the incident police had the authority to conduct a thorough investigation. They did not.
The night of the incident police had an opportunity to make a reasonable effort to locate and contact Trayvon's family. They did not.
After the night of the incident police had an opportunity to conduct a thorough investigations. The did not.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Now a month after the fact, we get one person in the police department who kinda covered his ass. I still expect a little bit more in a homicide case, don't you?

 

I realise that it happens and the relationship to SYG laws is the other side of what I said in my first post and what you said in the part of your post I'm about to get to. There might not be a practicable way to structure SYG laws that both allow well intentioned, responsible people the leeway to defend themselves without fear of prosecution without opening the door to people occasionally dying without justice.

Before I address this part, I should probably point out that I don't actually disagree with you, but I'm interested in exploring the issue. So it's going to look like I'm playing devil's advocate, as the phrase goes.

There is, without a doubt, people who think that the government has no business imprisoning innocent people and that no cost is too great to bear to ensure that it doesn't happen. In a way I'd almost be willing to call it an American Tradition. It's the same argument people have all the time as it relates to due process - Is it better to risk letting guilty people go in the service of maintaining due process or to occasionally look the other way when people who are obviously guilty have had their rights violated? For a certain set (which is probably almost exactly the same set as the one we're talking about here) no price to too high to pay for the maintenance of due process. So it is with SYG; no price is to high to pay in order to maintain your ability to defend yourself without fear of unjust prosecution. Give me liberty of give me death! Ya know?

Now, as it relates specifically to this case, I do think the pendulum has swung too far. The Florida statute, as explained in that radio show I linked to, is so open to abuse as to become a caricature of justice.

That program might actually be my favorite, on radio or television.; the fact that it's local is just the icing on the cake. Of course one of my favorite television news style programs is Charlie Rose, so perhaps I'm not normal.

I didn't say that it was, I was remarking upon a generality as it relates to the program I posted.

If you listen to the program they discuss that the Florida law and that as it's carried out translates to creating a situation where when a person claims self-defence under the SYG law they are automatically supposed to have a legitimate case. As a result, the burden falls on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not a clear-cut case of self-defense, which in my mind is an unreasonable burden because it can be so easily abused. I have no idea if this is accurate, whether it lines up with the law as written 100% (as has been posted here) isn't necessarily a good indication of accuracy, but if it is then there is a serious problem with the law.

 

O.k., I am with you so far. Basically, in a claim of self-defense there is a presumption that it is in fact self-defense. Isn't this similar to any presumption of innocence when an accused is the center of a police investigation?

I am with you in the context that a person can easily make the claim of self-defense/SYG even to the point of abuse and that it is a burden to police. Where I lose you is in what comes next.

Self-defense/SYG has clearly defined parameters there is established case law and it is not difficult to look at a set of fact and know if self-defense/SYG is applicable. Based on that I can not agree that self-defense/SYG is easily abused. If there is abuse, I would argue it is a choice by those responsible for enforcing the law. And with that, I would add any law can be abused in this manner.

I don't know where people really want to go in there fight against self-defense/SYG laws, personally I want the rights of self-defense enhanced and consistent in all 50 states.

 

Self-defense/SYG laws are not the same.

As I understand the SYG law in Florida, a claim of acting in self-defense does not protect your from being charged or arrested; a claim of being covered by the SYG law does, which is why the prosecutor refused to charge.

You want to enhance the rights of self-defense, so those who might be untrained or perhaps unstable or have hidden racial motivations or simply allowing their emotions to rule over reason under stressful circumstance have greater protections?

And the rights or protections of the person being shot?

This sums it up for me as well.

To even raise the issue of the ambiguities in the SYG law or the requirements for a CCW permit (how did Zimmerman ever get a permit having assaulted a cop in the past) or the spotty training required for a CCW permit (basically a few hours of classroom training in FL and firing one shot on the range) is seen as an assault on Second Amendment rights by many.

 

No, there is not a presumption of innocence because a claim under a SYG law is in fact an admission of guilt. When you make the claim you are admitting that you killed the person, BUT there are exculpatory circumstances where you could not have or should not have had to act otherwise and therefore the homicide (which you admit to) should be categorised as justifiable.

The problem is that there is in fact a gray area where it is difficult to see whether a SYG law is or is not applicable, regardless of whether you think so or not; particularly a few minutes after the shots have been fired and there is not even yet a clear understanding of what actually happened, let alone exactly which statutes ought and ought not apply. In that circumstance the kind of SYG law Florida has prevents the officers from making an arrest, even though there was an admission that a crime has taken place, without a preponderance of evidence that the claim is false. That evidence would almost never exist at the scene in an even slightly ambiguous case and an inability to make an arrest/have probable cause for the relevant searches can (and I'm sure does) hamstring investigations into SYG cases - making them easier to exploit and find refuge in when SYG does not apply, especially when the only witness is the shooter.

 

For what it is worth, here is a leaked video of Zimmerman arriving at the station that night:

George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance | Video - ABC News

 

1. I initially heard that he wasn't even taken to the station. So that is news to me.

2. Nose looks on straight to me.

 

Why does the discussion of SYG remind me of this?

It's Coming Right For Us (Season 1, Episode 3) - Video Clips - South Park Studios

 

SYG is not a new concept. SYG is a legal concept within the general provisions of self-defense. There have always been circumstances where a person had a legal right to stand their ground within the law. Typically SYG laws as being discussed expands when a person can stand their ground compared to an initial requirement to retreat if an opportunity to do so is available.

No.

I should never be obligated to retreat - in my opinion.

If the presumption is that the person being shot is innocent I think the shooter should be obligated to show just cause for a self-defense claim. If this is the hanging point on these laws, I can agree with modification or clarification. In my training, the point was made clear that in any circumstance where there was a discharge of a gun, the shooter/owner of the gun would be presumed responsible for what occurs afterward and would have to prove justification. I believe this is the commonly accepted view, even police officers are held to this standard. In a case like Tryavon's it is clear, the failure was not in the law but in those responsible for law enforcement.

I am discussing this issue.

I even suggest taking a gun safety course so that those who don't know, get a better understanding of the issues in question. Even if there is no interest in firing a gun or ever even owning a gun, I think the training is worth while. And I think parents absolutely should have their children take a gun safety training course. Even if the parent does not own a gun, a child may come in contact with one - they need to know how to handle the situation!

NRA members in particular are fanatics when it comes to gun safety. There are "many" in the gun culture who are not associated with the NRA who show little respect for responsible gun ownership. So, again, I say not all gun owners are the same. It would be wise to know the audience being addressed.
--- merged: Mar 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM ---

I am not a lawyer, but I can accept your explanation.

I would say the facts in each case speak for themselves. And we already have legal precedence in these cases.

For example and responsible gun owners would rehearse this:

You hear an uninvited intruder in your home.
You suspect it is a criminal.
You get your gun, you get the phone (cordless is best).
You retreat to a safe place
You call 911.
You put the call on speaker.
You say the following in a loud voice - I have called 911, I am armed, I feel my life is in danger, please leave.
You wait for police to arrive.

There is nothing ambiguous. If the intruder enters your safe place, you shoot. If the intruders leaves, fine. If the intruder announces, sorry I am Joe your neighbor, I entered the wrong house, and leaves, fine etc. etc. If the shooter fails to do these things, and kills someone, they have to be held accountable - in some way.

Making an arrest on the spot is a judgement call.

{add} I am going to add this as FYI for any interested in an option but would never want a loaded gun in their home. The universal "click-click" sound of a shot gun, even without ammunition, sends a clear message to any criminal intruder. they will hear it and be inclined to leave. Having a shot gun just to make the "click-click" sound or a way to convincingly produce the sound can be an effective defense. Here is an example, just imagine it without the shot:


--- merged: Mar 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM ---

This has been a case of police incompetence or corruption from the beginning. The initial investigation was a problem and since the attempts to cover it up have been a problem. Again, we face a moment when a class of people have to question the credibility of law enforcement in this country. And still no arrest! What is it going to take?