Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Florida Self-Defense Shooting Case Update
Dakini
Veteran
About 6 weeks ago there was a thread here about a man in Florida who shot and killed a teen who crossed the man's property. Under a controversial "Stand-Your-Ground" law, Florida allows homeowners at home to shoot to kill anyone who appears to be threatening in any way, even if only passing onto someone's private property to take a short-cut, or for any reason. Naturally, a law like that opens the door to the homeowner's interpretation, in which prejudice can play a role.
In this case, a teen who posed no threat to anyone was killed, in spite of 911 staffers telling the homeowner not to get involved. The killer was not arrested for some time, due to the "Stand Your Ground" law. The killer has now been found guilty of second degree murder.
The disturbing and puzzling thing for me was to see how many of our own members on NB sided with the killer. Shooting someone for no cause other than that he had crossed onto the homeowners property on his way back to a friend's house after buying candy at a local store was viewed by several Buddhists to be perfectly reasonable. I wonder if any of those have revised their view now that the case is nearing a close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-travyon-martin-shooting.html?pagewanted=all
In this case, a teen who posed no threat to anyone was killed, in spite of 911 staffers telling the homeowner not to get involved. The killer was not arrested for some time, due to the "Stand Your Ground" law. The killer has now been found guilty of second degree murder.
The disturbing and puzzling thing for me was to see how many of our own members on NB sided with the killer. Shooting someone for no cause other than that he had crossed onto the homeowners property on his way back to a friend's house after buying candy at a local store was viewed by several Buddhists to be perfectly reasonable. I wonder if any of those have revised their view now that the case is nearing a close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-travyon-martin-shooting.html?pagewanted=all
0
Comments
But I'm glad that this guy is getting his comeuppance.
You can Google nytimes, zimmerman, travyon martin case
I hope this case provokes a review of the whole concept of a stand-your-ground law. And it turns out, the homeowner, George Zimmerman, wasn't even defending his home, as had originally been posted here. He followed the youth in his car, after being told not to by 911 dispatchers. It also was revealed that Zimmerman had a history of violence and run-ins with law enforcement. He seems like a trigger-happy type.
My view is that a black youth walking to a freind's house escalated to a killing because George Zimmerman was being gung-ho in his neighborhood watch role (nothing criminal there). Trayvon Martin didn't know George was part of the watch and was worried that he was some thug out to harm him so he confronted him. When he got up in Zimmerman's face that confirmed Zimmerman's paranoia and if it turned physical then Zimmerman became afraid for his life. A tragic case of misunderstanding on both sides.
That being said the fault in my hypothetical scenario resides with George Zimmerman since he was putting himself in the authority position and because the 911 operator told him not to approach.
You make a good point; Zimmerman was the grown-up in the scenario, the responsible one. There's also been some concern about racial profiling playing a role in the incident. I think someone with Zimmerman's background shouldn't have been allowed to be part of the neighborhood watch team.
A country that thinks that everyone should have the right to bear arms shouldn't be surprised when they get used. On a good day the separation between crazy and sane only seems skin deep. Because everyone gets emotionally twisted from time to time, one definition of mine for brainless is allowing anyone to have the right to carry a point & kill tool.
In the land of the free, all the rights of the individual end up weighing little more than a few grams of lead.
As near as I can tell the prosecution has not yet finished their arguments so they are a ways off from convicting Zimmerman.
At this point it looks more like he will be found not guilty. Time will tell.
Whoever wrote that has no idea what they are talking about. You can't just go shooting people for no reason or because they short cut through your yard. That is complete nonsense!
For those of you not living in the US, in spite of what the news implies, almost nobody carries a gun around. Even people who hunt and have multiple guns rarely stick a gun in their pocket when they leave the house. My extended family has always hunted and every house has a collection of rifles and guns, and they all say anyone who walks around with a pistol is an idiot with fantasies of being Clint Eastwood.
But being an idiot is not necessarily breaking the law, and the problem with this case is a bad law pushed by an extreme fringe group with powerful ties to Republicans. It will be interesting to see what happens, but so far not a one of the states with similar laws has changed it at all.
Metta,
Abu
@vinlyn You're right, it would appear I'd been misinformed about the trial already having happened. Still, this is an opportunity for us to discuss the issue.
But the Zimmerman case points out the dangers in making guns readily available to anyone, and having lax gun laws. Any nut can get a gun, in spite of background check requirements (with his history of violence, Zimmerman never should have been allowed to have a gun), and depending on local laws, may literally feel he can get away with murder. Zimmerman wasn't apprehended for weeks, because of the stand-your-ground law, which amounts to a no-fault license to kill. We'll see how this test of the law plays out.
I think this is going to be a very difficult case. There's no reason the Martin boy should be dead. No reason at all. Period. But, as we have recently found out, Zimmerman walked away from the situation with cuts, bruises, and injuries. Tapes have been analyzed, but they could not determine who was screaming for help. Zimmerman apparently was on the bottom on the ground. Martin had every right to be where he was. Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch group, but was also told not to pursue Martin when he called the police, and he had called the police many times. Clearly over-zealous. Martin had a very light dose of marijuana in his system, but not enough to cause erratic behavior. Although Martin should be alive today, I can't say that it's all a clear cut case in terms of law. Another question that must be asked is what will ultimately happen to Zimmerman if he is found innocent?
So who's at fault? The neighborhood and the police knew Zimmerman was a loose cannon, an accident waiting to happen. The man's actions before this were not normal by any definition. The outrage comes from the police not even bothering to investigate this or hold Zimmerman responsible. Maybe the bad law means he gets off, maybe not. It is beyond doubt that if a black man had shot and killed a white boy, that black man would be on trial for murder automatically in the state of Florida, laws or not.
@Cinorjer Thanks for the synopsis.