I know it's been a few days but I still do not have Internet at my place, (shitty fucking worthless NZ ISPs,) hence the delay. I still feel I should respond to this even though I'm sure it's been discussed to death.
I used the qualifier "essentially" when describing the effects of the Stand Your Ground law and I stand by what I wrote. I agree with your assessment of it though, it is an extension of the Castle Doctrine with the key difference that it doesn't give the obligation to retreat. The thing is with this case it allowed Zimmerman to actively seek out confrontation - and whether he or Martin started any violent exchange the fact remains that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin. He sought out confrontation and when he got it, (and I see no evidence to suggest Martin posed any real threat to him in said confrontation,) Stand Your Ground gave him licence to use deadly force. How is that not as I said? Seek out confrontation, get confrontation, legally respond with deadly force. Daft.
Tilting the odds in favour of potential victims - maybe. However it also opens the door for what I've described above. I know the US has a great love of handguns but somewhere along the line someone needs to say "enough" and I think it's about the stage when you're writing laws that allow such free use of them that they can be used in the first instance of a potential confrontation.
While I don't think Martin was completely passive in all of this I don't accept Zimmerman's testimony either, there seems to be a lot of gaps and changes in his story.
And as to your last snide comment I'll add that I also hope you take it as a reminder never to have the audacity to stand up to an armed stalker. That kind of thing can get you killed.
I don't think you should criticise Martin's parents for trademarking their son's name - especially after others quickly jumped on the band-wagon to make a quick buck out of the tragedy. Either way, their son was just killed. It's not like this move negates their misfortune.13rin wrote:
No. The 'stand your ground law' does not give one the right to use deadly force when they see fit. It is merely an extension of the castle doctrine. Before a citizen when attacked had the obligation to retreat until they could no longer do so. Criminals loved taking advantage of this as they knew that law abiding citizens wouldn't fight back, but they'd run away. Kinda made for a 'target-rich' environment. This law just removed the duty to retreat and extended the castle doctrine to ones car. Actually in Florida, you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. That was in statute way before this law.Ty wrote:
I'm just going to copy-paste my post in the D+ST Chat thread:
It's interesting to see what the focus is on. There's race for one and hoodies and.. Skittles... it seems to me that the key focus should be on laws like Florida's 'Stand Your Ground', which essentially gives people the right to use deadly force when they see fit. This Zimmerman guy, I doubt he's a racist but he's clearly a fucking idiot. It's one thing that American law gives this idiot the right to own a handgun, it's another to give this idiot the licence to become a vigilante - if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony".
The D's in FL were pretty against this, and have been waiting for any instance to go after it. They're all but in a frenzy and the media has been all to happy to sensationalize this. Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakan have descended to incite civil unrest, teens are using this as an excuse to 'walk out of school' and flash mob rob stores, and TM's own mom has since trademarked his name to make a buck. Hell, even the Bamster himself has decided to cash in by stating that, "had he a son, it would look just like..." .. ?? Really?
I used the qualifier "essentially" when describing the effects of the Stand Your Ground law and I stand by what I wrote. I agree with your assessment of it though, it is an extension of the Castle Doctrine with the key difference that it doesn't give the obligation to retreat. The thing is with this case it allowed Zimmerman to actively seek out confrontation - and whether he or Martin started any violent exchange the fact remains that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin. He sought out confrontation and when he got it, (and I see no evidence to suggest Martin posed any real threat to him in said confrontation,) Stand Your Ground gave him licence to use deadly force. How is that not as I said? Seek out confrontation, get confrontation, legally respond with deadly force. Daft.
I disagree with your assessment about retreating. Twice in my life I've been confronted by people that I thought meant me harm and I scarpered both times. Would do it again, it was very effective. It doesn't give criminals an advantage or a target rich environment and I don't see how it would. Criminals don't generally target people they think will fight back, they generally don't want to bother chasing someone down either. Using deadly force simply shouldn't be a first option. That's not to say it shouldn't be an option but Stand Your Ground seems to be over-enthusiastic about it. Not having an obligation to retreat or use less-than-deadly force or maybe threaten someone with the firearm instead of shooting them straight out seems stupid. It seems to be borne from the US gun lobby rather than anything rational.13rin wrote:
Actually, the SYG law had nothing to do with this as Z is claiming self defense. But since I'm pretty sure that you have no idea about what the law under attack is really about, I'll clarify it one more time for you.. The law tilted the scales back in favor of the victim by removing that provision that one has an obligation to run away from the criminal before defending himself.ty wrote:
Zimmerman perceived Martin as a threat, he can be forgiven for suspecting that. Following, confronting and ultimately killing him because of said suspicion? This should not be okay - but it is under 'Stand Your Ground'. A law that, I'm pretty sure, exists for the sake of gun-lovers who want reassurance that they'll get to use their weapons for their intended purpose.
Tilting the odds in favour of potential victims - maybe. However it also opens the door for what I've described above. I know the US has a great love of handguns but somewhere along the line someone needs to say "enough" and I think it's about the stage when you're writing laws that allow such free use of them that they can be used in the first instance of a potential confrontation.
Zimmerman possibly had the best interests of his neighbourhood in mind, he probably thought Martin looked like a legitimate threat. That doesn't mean he should be forgiven for following Martin and not just because the 911 operator told him not to but because it was a really fucking stupid thing to do - regardless of whether it can be said to have led to the confrontation that caused Martin's death. His previous 911 callings over the years taken into account as well, Zimmerman was either over-protective or downright paranoid and given the recording of his 911 conversation and his apparent eagerness to open fire I'm going to guess the latter. While I don't criticise him for being paranoid or over-protective or a keen neighbourhood guardian it doesn't mean I'm going to forgive him for killing someone. He was still wrong and someone is still dead because of it. I'm not going to forgive a hunting accident either if the hunter tells me "well I really really thought he was a deer".13rin wrote:
He (Z) was a guy who had some problems (who doesn't). I'd argue that TM wasn't exactly clean either. However, Z was apparently concerned that law enforcement was not doing anything about the rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. According to the Sanford PD, that 'kid' fit the description. There is no law in Florida that states a person must follow the directive of a 911 operator. According to Z he was walking back to his truck when he was attacked. If that's true then who is more sane? The guy leaving or the guy pursuing and then assaulting the one leaving? Where did Z previously demonstrate that he was willing to use deadly force on anyone he believed to be a threat? Ever been to Miami?Ty wrote:
Now Zimmerman obviously wasn't a person that can be expected to be reasonable but that's not really my point. My point is that Zimmerman should be charged with murder and the 'Stand Your Ground' law means he gets away with it. It makes no sense, you've got a guy running around who has shown that he is willing to use deadly force on anyone he believes to be a threat - and you actually have a law to keep him from being prosecuted.
While I don't think Martin was completely passive in all of this I don't accept Zimmerman's testimony either, there seems to be a lot of gaps and changes in his story.
We're clearly not arguing about the same thing here. Don't tell me that I'm okay with someone passively accepting a beating, that's a stupid argument. I don't accept Zimmerman's testimony, all I'm going off is what I know. Skinny athletic kid armed with Skittles vs. Large 27 year old man armed with a handgun. Martin just doesn't come across as a threat in that scenario.13rin wrote:
I agree with you that race wasn't a factor here. Size has nothing to do with it. You don't know the physical condition of Z. He could have been out of shape, hasn't been to the gym in ages with some sort of physical ailment. We do know that TM was a football player. Football players are extremely athletic. But I guess in your eyes Z should have laid there and let the 'kid' continually bash his head into the sidewalk. Nah.. Actually I carry a gun pretty much everywhere I go. It is as normal as putting my wallet in my pocket along with my keys, knife and phone. But at the same time, I'm not a member of the neighborhood watch and I don't drive around at odd hours of the AM looking to see what people are doing.Ty wrote:
'Stand your Ground' essentially okays the practice of bringing a gun to a fist fight. Zimmerman didn't have reasonable grounds to use deadly force, that much should be clear. He was a big 27 year old man against a skinny black teenager armed with junk food. The question shouldn't be whether it was a shooting based on race or hooded sweatshirts regardless of whether it was that which made Zimmerman suspect Martin in the first place. It should be whether Zimmerman should be charged for shooting dead an unarmed civilian.
I'm not anti-gun, I'm a member of the armed forces for chrissakes. I am for sensible firearm legislation though and Stand Your Ground isn't it. Self defence is fine - a month or so ago in the US a woman had barricaded herself in her bedroom to protect herself from an armed intruder, she was on the phone to the police and was armed with a shotgun. The intruder was breaking through and she asked the officer if she should shoot him. I believe the officer told her to do what she had to do to protect herself. The woman chose to fill the intruder's chest with buckshot and I applaud this. I do not applaud an idiot putting themselves in harms way and then being given free reign to shoot their way out of it.13rin wrote:
Because you're anti-gun and immediately bought into the media sensationalizing this before all the facts have been revealed. There is nothing wrong with the 'stand your ground' law.Ty wrote:
Why is this even a debate?
This is just hearsay so really has no relevance to anyone's argument. I doubt Zimmerman was in a situation where he had no choice other than to use deadly force to protect himself. That's my point; using deadly force should be a last resort - there shouldn't be any debate on this. The problem with Stand Your Ground is that it doesn't make using deadly force a last resort as it should be.13rin wrote:
He was on his way back to his truck when TM confronted him. I'd say at the end of the day TM 'fucked up' by punching him in the face, straddling him and slamming his head into the sidewalk. Is that your idea of an innocent person?Ty wrote:
Even if Zimmerman "reasonably" thought Martin was a threat, even if he was fearful for his safety before and/or after being confronted, even if he is forgiven for being a fucking idiot and ignoring the police officers order to not follow Martin. At the end of the day he fucked up. He was wrong, he had poor judgement and as a result he killed an innocent person. The law should not be patting him on the back and saying "there there, we all make mistakes" it should be saying "you fucked up buddy, time to pay."
He should be charged. Definitely. Whether he is convicted or not will be up to the courts. His story is pretty damn weak and wouldn't do well in front of a courtroom. It will be pretty easy to determine the angle of the shots, (i.e. whether Zimmerman was cowering on the ground,) and to determine whether Zimmerman's injuries are legitimate - or existent. Those will either sink or save his argument. Even then there are other matters he'll have to get around. There should be anyway if Stand Your Ground doesn't let him get away scott free. But what we know is pretty bare and perhaps you're right and we'll never get the truth. Thing is Zimmerman shot and killed a person who prior to his involvement had no intention of doing harm to anyone. That shouldn't be acceptable.13rin wrote:
Furthermore, he hasn't been forgiven. He very well may still go to jail. The investigation isn't completed yet. Governor Scott & the bamster have appointed their appropriate people to review this. Hopefully the truth will come out and the media will actually report it and not some agenda driven, race baiting story.
But honestly, I dunno if we'll ever know the entire truth. There were two people there, and one is dead. Sad thing, but I'll take this as a further reminder to mind my own business whenever possible and to not go around punching people in the face and slamming their head into the sidewalk. You never know nowadays who's carrying, lawfully or not.
And as to your last snide comment I'll add that I also hope you take it as a reminder never to have the audacity to stand up to an armed stalker. That kind of thing can get you killed.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
