Trayvon Martin.

I am not going to dispute the SYG law. Whether or not it is a valid law that should be kept is not entirely relevant in this case. The main issue for me is that the police did not hold Zimmerman. The police did not treat this like a murder or a crime and then, when evidence to the contrary came up, either through forensic of eyewitness account, SYG would come into play.

Hell, if a cop shoots somebody in the line of duty, they have their gun taken and are (usually) put on leave until internal affairs can assess the matter. Was this minimum level of due diligence met in the case of Zimmerman? From what I have seen, the cops took him at his word. This is not good enough. Not in the slightest.

If you are going to have SYG laws, you need to be able to have a proper and thorough investigation into events that will result from using this law in their defense.

If it is found that the police on the scene at this shooting did not follow procedure, they should be held accountable. If they were following procedure, the procedure needs to be changed.

 

transcribing a tweet from will smith:

we live in an america where the girl that threw kim kardashian to the ground was arrested on site but the man who killed trayvon martin is still free.

 

I don't know the tapes I have heard of the lady calling in you can hear what appears to be a gun shot, then a man begging for help and another gunshot. What bothers me and tells me this may not have been the best of neighborhoods is they ask the lady to look outside and tell them what she sees and she says no, telling whoever is there with her to get down and basically not get involved. It's nice to know in the USA that people value neighbors (because it could have been a neighbor as far as they knew) not wanting to get involved but rather have a man shot to death begging someone for help.
--- merged: Mar 24, 2012 at 9:20 PM ---
Let me say this before I state an observational what "if".... the following is just MY WONDERING WHAT IF and how low and stupid this law could get.

So, IF say Zimmerman and Trayvon were having a drug deal and Trayvon shorted Zimmerman and Zimmerman went after Trayvon calling 9-1-1 and blah blah blah then chases him and shoots him.... then gets away with it and covers it up by taking the drugs off trayvon BEFORE the cops get there, it's ok. It's a legitimate SYG shooting and NOT a crime? So what's to prevent me from going down to Fla. making a drug deal with a friend , chasing the guy, blowing his head off taking his drugs and money and claiming it was a SYG shooting? Especially if it is a white guy in an upscale neighborhood and he's not wearing a "hoodie" but I am? Do I get away with it and what's the difference?

One can say well, there were no drugs involved in this episode, and that is quite possibly true, however in MY version where I blow the guy's head off my "eyewitness" friend moves fast enough to get the drugs and money off the guy and hide them before the cops get there, so it would appear no drugs were involved.

AGAIN THIS IS JUST A WHAT IF.... NOT intended in any way to even be thought of as a true scenario in the Zimmerman/Trayvon shooting.

 

the problem is that, given a shared set of racist assumptions that link the police interpretation of events to zimmerman's, the police can be understood as following procedure. on the one hand, this indicates the problem of the fact of these laws. on the other, because no charges were filed, the Perfection of the law itself is irrelevant.

 

She called 911 and she was afraid. You can hear it in her voice. No one would have advised her to go outside. What was she supposed to do?

 

I think look out a window, just peep through the curtains or blind to see if you could see anything to report. No going outside would have been stupid. That's what I meant, not going outside but at least looking to see if you could spot anything.

I'm not the bravest person and no way in Hell would I have gone outside but I would have at least looked to see what I could see.
--- merged: Mar 25, 2012 6:57 AM ---
According to this only one shot was fired. It also opens more questions for me than it answers... like if Zimmerman HAD a record especially for resisting arrest (albeit non violently) why wasn't he investigated? Why did the prosecutor not show up? It's bullshit to test the corpse and not the shooter (again my above scenario plays out). Why keep the gun if you are not going to investigate a cold blooded murder? And not even a warning shot are the police insane, what SYG is a right to shoot to kill? WOW... Wild Wild West here we come baby... Where's Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp when ya need them?

Trayvon Martin questions: Trayvon Martin myths, half truths - Orlando Sentinel

 

gotcha. i misunderstood what you wrote. still, she was very afraid. i don't think you can fault her for that.

 

In this case, this shooting has nothing to do with SYG. Just because Zimmerman makes this claim and the police accepted this claim does not make it a legitimate claim. If you don't understand that, you can not understand my position. I have tried to illustrate my position in many different ways and I will continue - and beat this drum until it is understood.

Example, Zimmer could claim other affirmative defenses like insanity as a defense - that claim is not an indictment against legitimate laws involving people legitimately mentally insane. Zimmerman could have claimed something as dumb as the police force not having jurisdiction for an arrest - that claim is not a legitimate claim even if some police investigator buy into it.

I don't have a problem with evaluating the law and making adjustments. But many here fail to make their positions clear.

Do you think SYG allows:

Person A to claim they feel threatened and then pull out a gun and fatally shoot person B - end of story person A uses SYG and avoids arrest?

Person A to punch person B in the face, person B punches back, person A claims they feel threatened and pull out a gun and fatally shoot person B - end of story person A uses SYG and avoids arrest?

Person A:

Plans for a perceived threat.
Arms himself for a perceived threat.
Searches for a perceived threat.
Calmly communicates locating a perceived threat to authorities.
Fails to follow instructions from authorities to avoid confrontation with the perceived threat.
Initiates confrontation with the perceived threat.
After a loss of contact with the perceived threat, hunts for the perceived threat!
Initiates confrontation with the perceived threat.
Failure to communicate he is armed, and warn the perceived threat that he is prepared to use a fire arm.
Uses deadly force in response to a perceived threat that was not equal to his life being in jeopardy.

and this person can simply say it was SYG, end of story and avoids arrest or even a thorough professional criminal investigation?

Tell me, what do you really think about SYG? Tell me how it applies in this case? How would a "reasonable man" look at the available facts in the context of SYG?

 

Ace, you seem to be ignoring the way in which SYG appears to have been applied in Florida.

 

Do you feel the same about Diplomatic Immunity Laws? If bastardized these laws can allow for limited legal recourse in the aftermath of a violent crime or death?

I am not saying people have nothing to fear. It is because people have issues to fear that I support gun rights. I have been a member of the NRA off and on over time, I would argue that you have nothing to fear from the NRA. In fact, I think every man, woman and child should take NRA or NRA - like, gun safety training. Even if I did not own a gun, my son would go through the training. My wife has no interest in guns, she went through the training. If you haven't I suggest you go through the training.
--- merged: Mar 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM ---

We or I don't know where he was shot. We or I don't know the trajectory of the bullet. Why? It is not difficult to know these things If Trayvon was shot in the back, the sh!t is really going to hit the fan regarding the police and the investigation.
--- merged: Mar 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM ---

If corrupt/incompetent/racist authorities bastardize a law the problem is not the law. Again, in the US thousands of men were lynched, in some cases with law authorities present. We are talking premeditated, cold blooded murder - when the police did do an investigation all kinds of b.s. reasons were given for inaction.

 

In cases where it allows people to get away with violent crime? Of course. Are you seriously using this to justify the law?

Well, thanks for making the argument, but it really doesn't address any of my previous statements. Thanks but no thanks.
--- merged: Mar 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM ---
PLUS, you are referring to (in relation) an extremely small subset of people in this country who are not American citizens. Should I imply by that that you believe that gun owners should have 'supra-citizenship,' as well? that would be rich. come on, say it just to make me happy.

 

Whether the fear justifies carrying weapons is debateable. However, I can accept that carrying a gun might make someone less afraid.

Do I want fearful people carrying guns around me? No. Hell, no.

There are multiple factors in this case. Racism, poor policing - you name it. However, to pretend that the fact that the killer carried a gun had nothing to do with it is perverse. Also, to suggest that a law that is poorly framed and has already allowed people to walk free because they were afraid and someone else found their fear "reasonable" is also perverse.

 

I am not trying to justify the law, I have been saying that any law can be bastardized. there is a sound basis for diplomatic immunity, there is a sound basis for SYG, both can be abused and applied incorrectly.

To be clear, if on the spot authorities made the wrong decision and let Zimmerman go without arrest. A thorough investigation can easily and quickly remedy that.

At the root of most of this discussion in my view is a failure to understand the responsibilities of a gun owner. In addition it seems to me that many here are arguing for changes in a law and ignoring established legal precedence they do not understand.

However, on the question of legal protections afforded to the insane, which may or may not be a small subset in this country, and from all indicators...oh, never mind

 

Zimmerman wasn't arrested at the scene or even taken in for questioning. All the things he could have claimed are irrelevant. He claimed he acted in self defense, possibly knowing enough about the law to know it offered him his best shot. Even within the SYG law, it appears he should have been at least taken in and questioned, but as others have pointed out, the law is broad enough to allow law enforcement some sense of leeway in making the call, on the spot. As a result of public outrage, Zimmerman may see his day in court where his defense will be evaluated.

Had it not been for the ensuing public outrage, he would have remained "in the clear" thanks to an interpretation of the SYG law by the Sanford PD for which there appears to be no oversight after the fact.

I'm sorry, Ace, but the law does bear some responsibility here, in it's failure to provide crystal clear guidelines and strict oversight of it's implementation.

 

I think having fears is normal, and healthy. I would be more concerned about the paranoid and irrational fear. Some may argue there is no difference, but I see a big difference.

I agree, no gun equates to no fatality by gun. I do not support what some argue after that. In fact I tried clarify that point in a earlier post. It was not helpful.

 

How can you say that the law itself is not the problem then claim you are not trying to justify it?

And why does it take a national outcry for justice for there to be a thorough investigation? Why doesn't the law itself provide for that? If the Sanford PD had acted differently, knowing their decision would be scrutinized by an oversight agency, as SOP, prosecutors would be sitting on a better pile of evidence for which to fight Zimmerman's SYP defense. As it stands now, they are claiming they don't believe that, what they do have, is enough to even bring charges, let alone convict. Sadly, even if the Sanford PD had felt they had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, the prosecution might not feel they had enough evidence to overcome the protection offered him by the SYG law.

 

A police officer always has the leeway to make an arrest or not. On the spot it is a judgement call. An officer's judgement may prove proper or improper. It is part of a process.

I also acknowledge that I was not there and that I may not have all the information. My judgement is based on the information made public.
--- merged: Mar 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM ---

People are fallible. We should expect high standards of caring and professionalism, when there is a failure we need a system in place to hold those responsible accountable for that failure. Everyone has a proactive responsibility in our system of checks and balances especially when those in the chain of command are slow or hesitate to respond.

 

In the case of a shooting where one person is dead and the other is still at the scene in possession of the weapon? If this is a situation open to a police officer's judgement, something has gone terribly wrong.

Yes, people are fallible and death is forever.