A man named George Zimmerman volunteered to be a neighborhood watch captain. Once Zimmerman saw Martin, he called 911 thinking that Matin looked suspicious. The operator tried to tell Zimmerman to keep his distance and that police would be sent, but there was confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. Martin was killed with a single shot to the chest. Yet, authorities in Florida have not arrested Zimmerman.
The question of the case involves Floridas so called "stand your ground" law which was passed in 2005 because of the National Rifle Association. Under the new law, a person is allowed to use a deadly force if he is in a place where he has a right to be and feels threatened.
Even though the operator told him to keep his distance, Zimmerman had a right to be on the street. But the question is, did Zimmerman reasonably feel threatened? There is proof that there was confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. They found that Zimmerman had an injury to his head. Most importantly, the police will never know the full story since Trayvon is not around to tell his side.
The facts of this case shows why the "stand your ground" law is so important. Was his understanding of the situation "reasonable"? Thats for the court to decide but it still gives a lot of deference to the perpetrator of a violent act. This is not the first time someone was killed unfairly. Ever since the law went into effect, homicides have tripled according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In the death of Trayvon Martin, it's prosecutors who are taking the heat for failing to bring any charges against George Zimmerman.
But will this outrage ever stop or are more innocent people going to keep getting hurt just because they seem suspicious?
4 comments:
I really don't like the idea of "stand your ground" laws. By exculpating anybody who feels threatened, the standard for what counts as a reasonable use of deadly force drops to almost nothing, giving people like Zimmerman no reason to think twice about their actions (aside from potentially killing someone completely innocent, that is). Stand your ground laws basically defend a shoot-first-ask-questions- later mentality legally. Such laws are dangerous when combined with gun owner with an action-encouraging title (watch CAPTAIN), and this can result in someone feeling compelled to carry out police(ish) duties without any of the training required to do so.
However, Zimmerman did have a head injury, but that does not necessarily prove Trayvon Martin initiated a conflict. If Zimmerman did start the conflict in which he committed to using deadly force, he is guilty of murder. He did call 911, and the 911 operator told Zimmerman to keep his distance. Unless the wound was self-inflicted as a cover-up to falsely prove conflict, either Zimmerman must have done something to get Martin to attack him (like threatening to shoot, or at least showing he had a gun, while approaching Martin), or Martin was attacking Zimmerman by his own choice.
In the first case, without stand laws, Zimmerman committed to deadly force without a serious threat (and committed murder), instead of following a "duty to retreat" (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law/index.html). In the second case, use of a firearm in self-defense would be considered disproportionate unless Zimmerman was pursued while in retreat. An investigation would determine the case. But stand your ground laws make it too easy Zimmerman to get off without an investigation by him saying he simply felt threatened.
Stand your ground laws boil down to an excuse for trigger-happy people to gun down what the personally see as a threat. They encourage deadly and disproportionate force before the user can determine the actual necessity. Duty to retreat must once again become the legal standard in confrontations.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman/
Apparently, Zimmerman chased after Martin after calling 911. He took action under his own initiative. Since Martin was running away from Zimmerman, he can't really be called a threat to Zimmerman. Zimmerman, by chasing a retreating Martin, can be considered to have initiated the conflict. Assuming the head injury was not a self-inflicted cover-up, Zimmerman must have either caught up to Martin or Martin turned around to confront his pursuer, this is the more likely case). Either way, Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, as he retreated and resorted to not necessarily deadly force (I'm assuming it was just his fists) against someone who committed to pursuing him with a means of deadly force. If someone can get away with starting an incident with a random person then killing that random person under Florida's stand your ground laws, then there is a serious problem.
To be honest, I'm really not surprised to hear that Florida has a "stand your ground" law. I feel like a lot of state laws are unnecessary and or unreasonable.
That being said, I think the "stand your ground law" is much too subjective to be a law. How can the government assess whether an incidence of shooting is legal or not based on the testimony of the shooter's sense of threat? The law is clearly biased against the shooting victim, giving the shooter the right to claim probable cause in shooting, simply by saying he/she felt "threatened". Feeling "threatened" is so subjective in itself.. I don't understand how this law passed in the first place.
Furthermore, the fact that the assailant is Caucasian and the victim is African American raises the question of racism. It's no secret that racism is and historically has been more prevalent in the South, which is a separate issue in itself. But when racial tensions lead to unreasonable, unjustifiable violence and killing, it is the government's duty to take action so that justice can be served.
In my humble opinion, this useless, counterproductive "stand your ground" law needs to be appealed ASAP.
To be honest, I'm really not surprised to hear that Florida has a "stand your ground" law. I feel like a lot of state laws are unnecessary and or unreasonable.
That being said, I think the "stand your ground law" is much too subjective to be a law. How can the government assess whether an incidence of shooting is legal or not based on the testimony of the shooter's sense of threat? The law is clearly biased against the shooting victim, giving the shooter the right to claim probable cause in shooting, simply by saying he/she felt "threatened". Feeling "threatened" is so subjective in itself.. I don't understand how this law passed in the first place.
Furthermore, the fact that the assailant is Caucasian and the victim is African American raises the question of racism. It's no secret that racism is and historically has been more prevalent in the South, which is a separate issue in itself. But when racial tensions lead to unreasonable, unjustifiable violence and killing, it is the government's duty to take action so that justice can be served.
In my humble opinion, this useless, counterproductive "stand your ground" law needs to be appealed ASAP.
Post a Comment