Justice isn't the goal of the legal system. Application of the legal system is. Sad, but true in many cases.
Some would contend that's what Jesus said about the Pharisees and scribes.
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
- Thread starter dyabolical
- Start Date
Some would contend that's what Jesus said about the Pharisees and scribes.
Well said.
The people calling for vigilante justice and the like are all pretty much idiots I think we can all agree. Everyone accused of a crime deserves a day in open court and due process. But the people saying that there is no way Zimmerman will ever get a fair trial are just espousing the opposite view of people calling for harm to Zimmerman - assuming he's absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing is just as intellectually dishonest as assuming he's guilty. Of course he's "innocent until proven guilty", but that legal philosophy has little to do with whether or not Zimmerman actually committed 2nd degree murder.
One thing is clear about this case - had Zimmerman not assumed Martin was "suspicious" and let the police do their job, Trayvon would be alive today. Zimmerman, a person with no law enforcement training and no legal authority exceeding Martin's, created a situation in which deadly force was either justified or it was not. Had he not created the situation, the force would not have been needed even if it was justified. This by itself isn't a crime, but it's an important lesson to anyone who thinks they should assume the role of law enforcement whenever they want.
One thing is clear about this case - had Zimmerman not assumed Martin was "suspicious" and let the police do their job, Trayvon would be alive today. Zimmerman, a person with no law enforcement training and no legal authority exceeding Martin's, created a situation in which deadly force was either justified or it was not. Had he not created the situation, the force would not have been needed even if it was justified. This by itself isn't a crime, but it's an important lesson to anyone who thinks they should assume the role of law enforcement whenever they want.
This is like arguing that if a woman didn't choose provocative clothing, she wouldn't have been raped.
Your post is largely specualtion as well. The fact that Martin had some sundries with him does NOT mean he wasn't doing or preparing to do anything illegal. His school record would indicate that there is reason to believe he might have been involved in burglaries previously.
There does not appear to be any evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal prior to the shooting.
That is why I believe we need to let this run it's course without offering uninformed opinions.
I don't know, or even have an opinion, about Zimmerman's innocence or guilt; Fortunately I don't have to decide that.
Michael Brown
This is only true if you assume that Zimmerman was the victim. The woman in your scenario is a victim, whereas we don't know whether or not Zimmerman was the victim of a totally random, life-threatening beating.
For me, the basic truth is that if the SYG is taken to its logical extremes, all one has to do in order to murder someone successfully and openly is get them in an isolated place, shoot them in the head, then claim self defense. Then the burden falls to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in fact self defense, which is extremely hard to do. If you're comfortable with that, well, I guess I don't know what to say. I hope you never end up in an isolated place with someone who doesn't like you or is deranged enough to want to kill you and probably get away with it.
If someone comes into your house and you kill them that's one thing - then I can see the burden of proof falling on the state to show that you weren't trying to protect your own life. But if "your ground" means basically anywhere, then how can we act surprised when incidents like this happen?
Person who FIRST escalates situation to level of deadly force is at fault.Definition of deadly force is very clear.
staring at someone or calling them names...not deadly force....
Them retaliating by beating on you so you are in fear of your life, as perceived by a reasonable person: deadly force.
I am open to being corrected on this by folks who actually know what they are talking about (like some of the LEOs on here). NOT by the random trollers on here.
Check out this link for latest on what Prof. Alan dershowitz has to say about this case...and he is a liberal law professor.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral
staring at someone or calling them names...not deadly force....
Them retaliating by beating on you so you are in fear of your life, as perceived by a reasonable person: deadly force.
I am open to being corrected on this by folks who actually know what they are talking about (like some of the LEOs on here). NOT by the random trollers on here.
Check out this link for latest on what Prof. Alan dershowitz has to say about this case...and he is a liberal law professor.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral
Last edited:
And until some evidence comes out of the actual trial, you should stick with this and stop speculating when it comes to matters of great importance to others.
Michael Brown
I have and your tax dollars assure that I will probably do so again for our society's benefit.
That's why I prefer to depend on myself and not the state nanny to protect myself.
Life is dangerous; get used to it.
Michael Brown
To the best of my knowledge there is no pattern of unjustified "stand your ground" killings. That is one thing about this situation that strikes me as ludicrous - an outcry from influential people that one case (unproven) justifies rolling back all stand your ground laws.
Similar threads
