3Qs: Debating the impact of 'stand your ground' laws

Mar 30, 2012 By Matt Collette
Law professor Deborah Ramirez says local police need to participate more in the training of private and volunteer security patrol officers, especially regarding issues of racial profiling, de-escalating potentially violent situations and the use of force. Credit: istockphoto.

The death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, black teenager shot by self-appointed community watch captain George Zimmerman in Florida, has sparked a turbulent nationwide dialogue on race and so-called “stand your ground” laws, which authorize the use of lethal force in cases of self-defense. On Tuesday, Deborah Ramirez, a professor in the School of Law, spoke at a panel convened by Congressional Democrats to address the case.

What issues come from the rise of private security forces and community watch groups that often take the place of patrols previously conducted by trained police officers?

Generally, when we think of community security, we think of the police, but the fact of the matter is that there are large numbers of private security officers in this country, and that does not include the many thousands of people who volunteer to provide security for their neighborhoods in the type of community patrols that George Zimmerman captained. As a result, much, perhaps most, of the patrolling function that we think is fulfilled by professional police officers is now being done by private security employees, volunteer community members and neighborhood watch volunteers.

Given their pervasive patrol presence and their routine carrying of firearms in our communities, the police need to participate in the training of private and volunteer security patrol officers, especially regarding issues of racial profiling, de-escalating potentially violent situations and the use of force. Private security officers, community volunteers and community watch members also need to be informed of the limits of their authority; they may think they are police, they may even want to become police officers, but they are not police officers and they do not have police powers. And when they abuse their authority as private citizens and exercise authority that we reserve for , police departments must be vigilant in prosecuting them and, where appropriate, take steps to revoke their license to carry firearms.

Florida’s “stand your ground” laws have come under intense scrutiny since the incident. What changes do you believe are necessary?

We cannot ignore the possibility that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” statute enables the needless use of deadly force by justifying the use of deadly force that would not be justified under the common law of murder. Under the common law of murder, a person is legally justified to use deadly force only when faced with the imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, and only as a last resort.

As police chiefs predicted, there is evidence that the “stand your ground” statutes have been used to justify killings in a variety of tense situations: gang turf battles, backyard disputes between neighbors, road-rage incidents, arguments among drug dealers. In Florida, since the law was passed, the number of homicides described as justifiable has nearly tripled. After all, if you kill someone during a violent encounter and no one else saw the killing or is willing to say what happened, who will be there to rebut the killer’s claim that he acted in self-defense?

Anecdotal evidence of the real-world consequences of the “stand your ground” laws, however, will probably not be persuasive to a legislature considering repeal of such a law. Hard data from carefully prepared studies might be more persuasive, and the Department of Justice is uniquely positioned to commission such empirical studies. The National Institute of Justice needs immediately to study these laws and determine whether they deter aggressors from initiating acts of violence, or more often encourage acts of violence by persons who otherwise could have walked away from their aggressors. 

What does the police response to Martin’s shooting death reveal about the Sanford police department’s handling of its investigation?

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this tragedy is the apparent failure of the Sanford police department to fully investigate this homicide when it occurred one month ago. As best I can tell, the Sanford police department accepted the explanation of George Zimmerman that he acted in self-defense and failed to take sufficient steps to determine whether the other evidence in the case corroborated or was in conflict with his explanation.

The Department of Justice should establish protocols for state and local police departments to follow in the investigation of every homicide, even a homicide that appears to have been in self-defense. The should never rely on the word of the shooter without thoroughly investigating the case to determine whether the eyewitness and physical evidence confirms or contradicts the person’s account of events.

The School of Law's Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project (CRRJ) will hold a panel discussion Thursday afternoon at 5:30 p.m. in 240 Dockser Hall that will examine the Trayvon Martin case, "stand your ground" laws and racial profiling. Ramirez and CRRJ founder Margaret Burnham are among those taking part in the event.

Explore further: Couples need just one conversation to decide not to have children

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Stop or I'll download

Apr 11, 2005

Police in Fresno, Ca., will soon be able to download mug shots and streaming video through computers in their patrol cars and special handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs). The city of 456,000 in the Golden State’s Cen ...

Collaboration helps police address job stress

Sep 17, 2008

Mangled bodies, gunfire, high-speed chases and injured children are just a few events witnessed by police officers and soldiers serving in dangerous hot spots around the world. These traumas take a high toll on the police ...

Recommended for you

Residents of 'boom time' suburbs face unsustainable commutes

16 hours ago

People living in the 'boom time' suburbs of Dublin are more likely to endure unsustainable commutes to work than those living in older accommodation. Research shows that people living in newly constructed housing in the Greater ...

Male-biased tweeting

Apr 23, 2014

Today women take an active part in public life. Without a doubt, they also converse with other women. In fact, they even talk to each other about other things besides men. As banal as it sounds, this is far ...

User comments : 59

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nappy
2.8 / 5 (24) Mar 30, 2012
If you are on my property without my permission, you are treading on thin ice. If you enter my house or my car without permission, you are dead. I have an inalienable right to my porperty and my family. The intruder is the offender, not the defender. This deal in Florida is as yet an unknown situation. This has been politicized beyond belief and has NOTHING to do with any of the castle laws. More crap masquerading as news.
Jotaf
3.4 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2012
Except the kid was killed on the street and not at someone's property. That was not defense, it was randomly killing people you don't like seeing in your street. It's the Wild West.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2012
If you enter my house or my car without permission, you are dead.

Do the words 'appropriate response' mean anything to you?
You sound like this: "If I buy an ice cream cone and someone else touches it - I will shoot them dead instantly"

Yes, the intruder is the offender and needs to be dealt with/punished/whatever... No one is debating that. No one is saying that the intruder is the party that needs to be dfended here - UNLESS the owner goes completely bananas and breaks out the guns.

There's a difference between appropriately repsonding to a (perceived) threat and waging all out nuclear war for receiving a dirty look.

Except the kid was killed on the street and not at someone's property.

And it wasn't even "stand your ground", but the guy followed the kid first.
baudrunner
2.7 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2012
The real tragedy is that Americans share a world view unlike the people of other developed nations today. It has become a nation of gun toters, based on a constitutional clause introduced to enable Americans to defend themselves against the British in the 1770's. Now it seeems completely normal (to you, appalling to me) to find oneself engaged in a casual discussion on the pros and cons of killing. That is the legacy left by the British, a people who themselves are barely conscious of the fact that they evolved in a society where for many centuries public displays of gore and horror kept the people in line through terror. It just comes full circle. The people are terrorizing themselves now.
RitchieGuy
1.8 / 5 (23) Mar 30, 2012
@antialias. . .first of all, your analogies are ridiculous. . .and secondly, Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch captain whose obligation is to keep an eye on the neighborhood and check out any possibility of criminal behavior and/or possible crime scene potentialities. He followed Martin to find out what his business was in that neighborhood since there had been several burglaries previous to that night. If the boy had any sort of intelligence, he should have just stated his business being there and that should have ended the matter. But evidently, after asking Zimmerman, "why are you following me?", the boy got into a snit over being asked, "what are you doing here", and then became the aggressor. The boy went into punk mode and decided to be confrontational with Zimmerman when all Zimmerman did was to ask "what are you doing here?". That question was the clincher for me. Zimmerman was not going for his gun after he asked that question. He would've had to have scared for his life to
RitchieGuy
2 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2012
@baudrunner. . .perhaps you don't live in the U.S., but I do. The news is full of gang-related killings and people being beaten because they're White or Black or Asian. Convenience stores, banks and ordinary citizens are held up in parking lots and everywhere else by these thugs, and the victims cannot do a thing about it. . .because they are weaponless. Murders are committed by those with guns against those without a weapon. Murders are also committed with knives and baseball bats, etc. but it seems that guns are the weapons chosen by Liberals to remove from the victims, so that only the cops and the criminals are well armed. If someone attempts to invade MY home and property, they have placed themselves in the unique position of self-destruction by my hand. This may sound like a foreign concept to many, but it is the truth. A criminal is at risk of death at my hand because it is HIS choice to do so. . .not mine. The problem with Liberals is that they fail to consider the victim's
RitchieGuy
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 30, 2012
rights, as though the criminal has more rights than anyone else.
Liberal thought is, unfortunately, inconsistent with regard to their OWN self-defense, because they will carry guns or have an armed bodyguard, while they expect ordinary citizen to go defenseless and DIE instead. That is not equal justice.
I believe Zimmerman had to defend himself, and it's terrible that he was driven to shoot a 17 year old who had no business confronting him. But it is what it is. . .and I fear for that man whether he is brought to trial and lands in jail, or not. That mob will get him and somebody will murder him, and THAT is like the Wild West.
Calenur
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2012
Ritchie, thank you for keeping in line with your christian conservative values by wishing me an agonizing and terror filled death. You certainly are the embodiment of everything grand.

Fortunately, I don't live in constant fear for my life, or fear that somebody is going to try to steal my property. I've surrounded myself with quality people, and treat people with respect. If I get killed in a freak accident, I guess that's going to happen, but I'm certainly not going to presume I need every white American male (that's what you're going for, right?) carrying a gun for my defense. I can take care of myself, thank you.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2012
If the boy had any sort of intelligence, he should have just stated his business

So now I have to state my business to any bum who comes up to me on the street? I don't think so. "Neighborhood watch" is not a law enforcement official.
Shooting someone who didn't "state his business" is way, WAY out of line.

Zimmermann should have apologized and said "Sorry, your business is none of my business"
Moebius
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2012
I'm in favor of the laws but Zimmermann is not covered by the law.

There is one simple fact that everyone seems to be missing. If Trevon had the gun and killed Zimmermann he would CLEARLY be following the law. He was followed, provoked and probably attacked while doing nothing wrong.
RitchieGuy
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2012
@Calenur. . . .white American male. . .black male. . .Asian male. . .no difference. If they are law-abiding and follow the rules, they can pack a gun for self defense and the defense of family and property. . .also to help others if needed. Your problem is that you don't live in the real world. You say that you are surrounded by "quality people". Define "quality people" if you don't mind. Maybe quality like Senator Ted Kennedy who drove off a bridge and didn't try to save the young woman in his car? I can name dozens of "quality" people who, in reality, are useless and worthless, but just happen to have lots of money to qualify them as being "quality".
I can assure you that nobody is going to look out for you in your moment of need for help, quality or not. In fact, they will most likely run the other way unless they are carrying a weapon.

And by the way, I am a Conservative in a political sense and I don't believe in organized religions. I just respect their followers.
RitchieGuy
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 30, 2012
antialias says"
If the boy had any sort of intelligence, he should have just stated his business

So now I have to state my business to any bum who comes up to me on the street? I don't think so. "Neighborhood watch" is not a law enforcement official.
Shooting someone who didn't "state his business" is way, WAY out of line.

Zimmermann should have apologized and said "Sorry, your business is none of my business"


Zimmerman may have had a patch on his jacket with the Neighborhood Watch logo on it. He stated that he lost track of the boy and went to his SUV, after which he was attacked by Martin.
As for YOU. . .there is no reason for you to state your business to anyone, unless you are found cruising around a neighborhood where several homes had been broken into and stuff stolen. . .and you are out late on a rainy night. . .and you look suspicious because you are wearing a hooded jacket which a lot of gang members wear. I would not hesitate to state MY business in a
Simonsez
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
Moebius has the right of it - what happened does not have anything to do with castle doctrine laws due to the circumstnaces and by all appearances (pending further investigation and new evidence) seems to be a wrongful death/murder. Any reasonable person would want to wait for the results of the investigation and trial before casting aspersions.

To the author of the article, "Matt Collette" - you might strongly consider appending words like "alleged" and "allegedly" when referencing Zimmerman. To the best of my knowledge the investigation is not closed and he has not yet had due process or confessed to the crime, regardless of how damning the evidence seems.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
situation like that because I might be talking to a plain-clothes detective, for instance, or a cop off from work. There are many reasons to be cautious and not get crazy over someone asking you a question like the one Zimmerman asked. You don't need to get close to the person, but you don't have to be disrespectful either. He could be carrying a knife or a club. . .if he's a criminal. The point is that you can't tell who is what.. .or what they're capable of doing to you or you to them.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2012
Zimmerman may have had a patch on his jacket with the Neighborhood Watch logo on it.

So? I can embroider a patch of "league of super-ultra power heroes" on my jacket. Doesn't give me any kind of right to accost people, brown-nose into their business, or act as if I have any kind of authorirty over anybody.

.there is no reason for you to state your business to anyone, unless you are found cruising around a neighborhood where several homes had been broken into and stuff stolen

That changes nothing. Zimmerman still had neither the authority nor the right to ask the kid anything. He just went power mad with his self styled badge and his gun - thinking that this entitrled him to do anything nomral citizens cannot.

A cop off work also has no authority whatsoever. Cops are civilians. Being shot for showing disrespect? Is that normal in your family?
RitchieGuy
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2012
I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would never use it unless ALL conditions are 110% perfect and there is no possibility whatsoever that I could be mistaken. If I am attacked with an intent to murder me or if my family is attacked, I will not hesitate to defend them and myself or any other victim. As I've said, the criminal is the one who makes the decision to put his life on the line. I am not responsible for that decision. He will allow me to take his life because of his actions, and no court in the world would convict me, even without Castle Doctrine, because I am defending my life.
RitchieGuy
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2012
@antialias says:
""A cop off work also has no authority whatsoever. Cops are civilians. Being shot for showing disrespect? Is that normal in your family?""

You are incorrect. An off-duty cop has the right to arrest a perpetrator and call for backup if needed. He is STILL a cop even on his off hours.
I never said anything about being shot for showing disrespect. You are twisting my words. Shame on you

Nobody was accosted. . .a question was asked, and it was met with an attack from behind. I have asked people whom I've seen walking on the road near my property if they live nearby. They are always cordial and friendly and don't get an attitude over my questioning, because they are also interested in strangers in the neighborhood. That is necessary.
RitchieGuy
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2012
I find that it is mostly those who live in the Northeastern part of the U.S., and states like California who are dead set against anyone having the capability of defending their selves, home and family. And it is also those same people who will scream and wail whenever it is they who are accosted, molested, raped, beaten, and/or someone they love murdered. They will be the first to yell bloody murder if its their own that has been attacked, but as for anyone else, they will say, go f**k yourself.
That is the Liberal way.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2012
Stand Your Ground" laws do not apply in this case. Period.

http://volokh.com...se-laws/
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2012
He is STILL a cop even on his off hours.

If he identifies himself as such (and can show proper identification, like a badge)

A neighborhood watch sticker is not an official badge.

. . .a question was asked, and it was met with an attack from behind.

It was? Says who?
Callippo
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2012
"A cop off work also has no authority whatsoever. Cops are civilians. Being shot for showing disrespect? Is that normal in your family?"
You should understand the attitude of people posting here. Antiallias is an idealistic freak separated from reality. Just try to say to some cop at the street, he's a civilian in the same way, like you: he will tase you, so you'll forget fast the thinking about BS.
RitchieGuy
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2012
Zimmerman said that he was attacked from behind by Martin as he was going to his car.
And yes, if a cop is off duty and has to make a collar, he will show his badge first. . . .even while in plain clothes, or even while he is just asking a question, he will have to show his badge. There are specific rules.
Jotaf
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2012
Doesn't matter. You shoot an unarmed kid in the middle of the street, you go to jail for murder. That's all.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2012
You cannot excuse violence with violence.

Any reaction that isn't proportional to the action is unjustified. If all it takes is talking to get the robber out of your home, beating him to death or shooting him as a first course of action is unreasonable and should be punishable just the same.

You can't shift the blame on the other person by saying that it's not your choice - it is your choice to shoot first and ask later. It is your choice to commit murder and call it self defence.
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Perhaps any weapon that is lisenced for use in self-defence and protection of property should be equipped with a black box recorder that activates the moment the gun is picked up or unholstered.

Accelerometer data and voice recordings could then be used by the court to determine whether the weapon was used for self-defence or not, because you can read things like how the weapon was held and how it moved prior to shooting.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2012
"Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army.""
http://www.firear...ion.html

"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone"
http://www.nytime...tus.html

Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
Ritchie...just like your gun toting brethren, you're fucking nuts. Please live in the country, we don't need you around civilization.


And you're illogical.

Criminals by definition will NOT abide by guns laws, therefore gun laws effectively disarm law abiding citizens and NOT criminals.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
Wrt the Treyvon case, no one knows what took place that night. The investigators will do their best to determine if Zimmerman was defending himself or over reacted.

If it is true that Treyvon was banging Zimmerman's head against the ground, this clearly is intent to do serious injury, and therefore Zimmerman has rights to defend himself with force.

If Zimmerman engaged Treyvon into an altercation, the florida stand your ground law will likely not apply.

What disturbs me is how the media tried to make this into a racial thing. In places like Chicago, some 20 young black youth were shot in ONE month, yet there is no national outcry. Only when there is a white involved, does the race baiters come out of the wood work. It is black on black crime that blacks need fear, not white on black crime. All the stats back this up.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
This article is just another example of the 'liberal' bias of physorg.com
Where is the science, the facts?
In the USA, we still like to think we have the rule of law where any accused are presumed innocent until evidence, aka data, is sufficient to warrant an arrest.
This case is an tool to spin up the useful idiots to deflect from Obama's bad leadership.
"In fact, during a span of six-hours Thursday night, 13 people were shot, leaving two dead in Chicago. It would seem it takes more courage to simply walk down the street in Rush's district than it does to wear a hooded sweatshirt in the H"
http://www.breitb...District
"Sharpton then accused a local police cult with ties to the Irish Republican Army of perpetrating the alleged assault."
http://www.slate....ton.html
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2012
Doesn't matter. You shoot an unarmed kid in the middle of the street, you go to jail for murder. That's all.


How does Zimmerman know before hand A) he is a kid, under the hood, and B) he is unarmed?

Treyvon is actually a larger guy than Zimmerman, plus wore a hood to either hide his identity or his age.

I would like to see Zimmerman prosecuted for manslaughter IF the investigators find that appropriate, not because of some Kerry-Springer know-nothing crowd "demands it".
infinite_energy
2.2 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2012
I would move to USA only to have the chance to kill somebody and getaway with it.
Americans do not seem to be able to learn the fact that killing somebody is not "all right".
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 30, 2012
I'm in favor of the laws but Zimmermann is not covered by the law.

There is one simple fact that everyone seems to be missing. If Trevon had the gun and killed Zimmermann he would CLEARLY be following the law. He was followed, provoked and probably attacked while doing nothing wrong.


And you base that non-sense on what exactly? Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person, who's job it was to follow and question guys walking around the gated community.

Why would Zimmerman attack Treyvon physically, having already called the police? That doesn't make sense.

He likely engaged Treyvon with Questions not Violence, to which Treyvon being a thug wantabe probably engaged Zimmerman into a fight.

All the above is meaningless speculation, including mine. Let the investigators do their job with the info available and accept the results.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
I would move to USA only to have the chance to kill somebody and getaway with it.
Americans do not seem to be able to learn the fact that killing somebody is not "all right".


What Americans think is alright, is defending one's life against violence, as people will do ANYWAY.

What country are YOU from?
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2012
It (USA) has become a nation of gun toters, based on a constitutional clause introduced to enable Americans to defend themselves against the British in the 1770's.
Walking around without a gun is like wearing a sign "I hate *****" pining for a fight. In Europe you're a constant target for street violence with an indifferent police, while the thugs all have knives or guns. Of course in Russia I can hire someone with connections to stop people bothering me, but it's expensive. The working man should be able to defend himself too. Once you clear the streets of animals then maybe we can talk. For example preemptive in-utero testing for criminal tendencies. But that comes perilously close to racial profiling and deselecting of potentially vital genes. No. best to take out the bad apples once they turn sour, but before the rotting fishhead spoils the fish.

@infinite_energy In an armed conflict someone will die. Best it not be me.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2012
I would move to USA only to have the chance to kill somebody and getaway with it.
Americans do not seem to be able to learn the fact that killing somebody is not "all right".

Norway didn't seem to think murder was too bad as a mass murderer was NOT sentenced to life in a country club prison.

Koch, most who legally carry firearms in the USA do so concealed.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (40) Mar 30, 2012
This would seem to be an effective way to kill Conservatives indiscriminately as the conservative menace is destroying America and therefor there is a valid justification of self defense against such a threat.

"This article is just another example of the 'liberal' bias of physorg.com" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (39) Mar 30, 2012
Killing someone in defense against agression does not require a gun.

Just ask the Palestinians.

"Koch, most who legally carry firearms in the USA do so concealed." - RyggTard
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
Shootist says:
Stand Your Ground" laws do not apply in this case. Period.

http://volokh.com...se-laws/


You may be right, but the Jury will make that decision. None of us were witness to the shooting and the events before it happened. But Zimmerman said that he lost the kid and then walked back to his car. Even if the kid walked near him and then passed by him, there was no reason for Zimmerman to fire that gun. I don't think there is just cause to say that he had it in for that kid and wanted to shoot him to get even, or out of some sense of superiority, or racial profiling. I believe that Zimmerman was just interested in getting to his car and drive off. It was night time and it was raining. I doubt the guy had any intention of searching for Martin or waiting for him to show up. I believe it when he said he was going to his car; that means he had his back toward Martin when he got jumped.
It's a bad chain of events, that's for certain.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2012
Hi.
I don't understand what all the rationalisations and pro-anti-gun arguments are about in this instance. I do understand that Mr Zimmerman disobeyed direct orders from superior authorities who expressly instructed him NOT to follow once he had reported to the police what he suspected and who and where. If Mr Zimmerman then proceeded on his own to follow then he effectively divested himself of any and all 'law-enforcement authorisation' for his status/actions thereafter. End of story. Anything else is strictly irrelevant to this case; because it is based on further supposition and political argument having nothing directly to do with the facts ensuing once Mr Zimmerman disobeyed orders from authority. Let's leave those higher authorities to sort out at which point Mr Zimmerman became an alleged 'vigilante' against orders.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
But what I believe has no bearing on the case, and what actually happened is between Zimmerman and the law. If he actually was knocked to the ground by Martin, the kid could easily have gotten the gun from him and shot him instead. If Zimmerman was on his back on the ground, and there is evidence for that, it would mean that there was a struggle and Zimmerman went down. My guess is that he feared that the kid was going for the gun to shoot him, so he shot first. When you're on the ground and without a weapon, you can be killed easily. But he did have a weapon and he used it. Whether he was wrong to fire the gun or not, he is now being crucified and will be murdered in jail. If he goes to jail, they will need to keep him locked up by himself because someone of color will kill him.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2012
@RitchieGuy. Hi. The FIRST case to answer is the one where Mr Zimmerman disobeyed authority when told NOT to follow, as explained in my previous post. Once he disobeted that order he was NOT 'authorised' in any way. If he followed it could be argued that Mr Zimmerman criminally contributed to the situation escalating, and at least must be charged with wilfully and with apparent disregard for consequences in situations where a firearm is at hand, precipitated the confrontation (irrespective of who did what when etc). The situation would NOT have arisen at all if Mr Zimmerman had followed express orders from higher authorities to NOT follow but merely report as he had done already (at which stage he had effectively discharged his 'authorised duty' and should have left the police to come and deal with whatever. The fact that Mr Zimmerman effectively divested himslef of all 'authorised/legal protections' from his ensuing status/actions, then we must leave the courts to determine the case.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Killing someone in defense against agression does not require a gun.
Indeed a former bodyguard was trained in Krav Magna and had to disclose that to potential advisories, as his hands are legally deadly weapons.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2012
""The situation would NOT have arisen at all if Mr Zimmerman had followed express orders from higher authorities to NOT follow but merely report as he had done already (at which stage he had effectively discharged his 'authorised duty' and should have left the police to come and deal with whatever.""

OK. . .it's not good to second guess an event about which we know very little. But my feeling is that Zimmerman may have wanted to get a little information from the kid to see whether or not a police officer was needed. For the dispatcher to send an officer out to the scene if all the kid was doing was walking home would've been a waste of time all around when the officer could be stopping a crime elsewhere. I think that is what was on Zimmerman's mind when he followed Martin to ask what he was doing there. Due to the bad economy, the cops have a lower budget and appreciate the work that the Neighborhood Watch volunteers do to help the police, such as it is.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2012
Killing someone in defense against agression does not require a gun.
Indeed a former bodyguard was trained in Krav Magna and had to disclose that to potential advisories, as his hands are legally deadly weapons.


Absolutely!! A good chokehold and pressure in a certain spot can render anyone unconscious. Hold that pressure and death occurs shortly after. But Kochevnik is right. That takes special training. I doubt that Zimmerman had much training in sidearms.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2012
It's good to see physorg is following their socialists leaders to divert attention from the real problems the socialist govts are failing to address, or failing because of their socialist policies.
In the US, fuel prices are rising, inflation is rising, Obama's policies are failing.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Mar 31, 2012
"I find that it is mostly those who live in the Northeastern part of the U.S., and states like California who are dead set against anyone having the capability of defending their selves, home and family" - RichieTard

By murding a black man who is walking down their street minding his own business.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
In the US, fuel prices are rising, inflation is rising, Obama's policies are failing.
LOL that's what you've voted into power this century. Now eat crow.
Feldagast
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2012

By murding a black man who is walking down their street minding his own business.


Why does the color of his skin make a difference? Why are they calling Zimmerman a White-Hispanic now? Can we now call Obama a white African? They are using this "moral outrage" to further a political agenda, if they were truly outraged about the deaths of the black youth then they would do something about the black on black crime which is killing their youth a lot faster than whitey has.
As far as this case goes, we are supposed to be a land of laws, but I suppose some of us only want them to apply when it suits them. Also if your not from Florida don't try to apply your states laws to this case. I hope you never encounter the need to protect yourself from harm or defend your loved ones from same. I wonder if it did happen though would you be able to make the same arguments.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
In the US, fuel prices are rising, inflation is rising, Obama's policies are failing.
LOL that's what you've voted into power this century. Now eat crow.

We can fix that in Nov.
Russia is stuck with Putin and the hammer and sickle, again.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2012
"London - An al-Qaeda-inspired gunman kills paratroopers and Jewish children in southern France. A far-right fanatic enraged by Muslim immigration guns down dozens of youths at a summer camp in Norway.

Two atrocities in the space of the year, coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, are raising fears across Europe that a growing climate of ethnic and religious hostility is inspiring extremist violence - and creating the conditions for deadly clashes."
http://www.news24...20120330
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2012
"I find that it is mostly those who live in the Northeastern part of the U.S., and states like California who are dead set against anyone having the capability of defending their selves, home and family" - RichieTard

By murding a black man who is walking down their street minding his own business. - Venereal_Disease


You are jumping to conclusions based on nothing. If Treyvon was banging Zimmermans head onto the cement, that doesn't qualify as minding his own business.

Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person on duty, which means that he has the right to use his judgement in questioning anyone walking around there.

The entire argument that "profiling" is wrong is a fraud. There is nothing wrong with using the facts at ones disposal to make judgements in a given situation. The crime rate amongst hood-wearing black youth are disproportionately high. This is factual information we all know, and it is unreasonable to ask that one pretend it isn't.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2012
Another example of media bias, Martin was at least 6 feet tall and played football. That is not displayed in the media photos.
Zimmerman is to be 5'9".
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Mar 31, 2012
Which means in Florida he can be legally murdered on the street.

You have to wonder why Libertarians like RyggTard created laws that allow such a thing.

It is just one aspect of Libertarian Paradise.

"Another example of media bias, Martin was at least 6 feet tall and played football." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (38) Mar 31, 2012
The difference of course is that in France those murders were illegal, while in Florida Libertarians have created laws that make the murder there legal.

"An al-Qaeda-inspired gunman kills paratroopers and Jewish children in southern France." - RyggTard
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2012
VD, don't be a dunce, it is already legal to use violence to defend your life against a attacker attempting harm you. This is the case implicitly, all around the world. Courts don't convict people that use force to defend their lives.

The question at hand is whether Zimmerman used deadly force unjustifiably. This requires investigation and judgement when the facts are available. In civilized nations one is presumed innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty of a crime. Defending one self (which everyone would do) is not a crime.

As I said above I want to see Zimmerman charged if deadly force was not justified.
paulandrewanderson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Our social roles do not determine our character; our character determines our social roles! Paul Andrew Anderson
Humans seek opportunities to do what they want to do; period! Those who are murderous, but have not already murdered because they fear the consequences -prison- will seek another outlet for this hidden internal rage: They will find social outlets. A person who trains with a firearm by firing at a human-shaped target, are learning to kill efficiently; it is the art of death and weapon ownership the vehicle. By masking it in a socially acceptable (legal) role, the act of killing another human is as a time bomb that needs to detonate. This does not mean that all gun-packing professionals are murderous; it does however, imply that some are; and will; and do! As a crime of opportunity, they need for it to look like they were doing their duty; otherwise, even military or police professionals go to prison if it's proven they murdered. No one openly confesses they are murderous.
powerup1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
@antialias. . .first of all, your analogies are ridiculous. . .and secondly, Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch captain whose obligation is to keep an eye on the neighborhood and check out any possibility of criminal behavior and/or possible crime scene potentialities.


@Richieguy the first thing is, I don't know if you're serious, or if you are just being a troll. Zimmerman was self appointed and not a part of any neighborhood watch organization, even if he were, he would not be allowed to carry a gun, or stop people. Neighborhood watch persons are to observe and report, and are not to try to be police officers. Another thing is how would you know when it was that he decided to use his gun, where you there? He may have really felt in fear of his life, but it was his reckless actions that put him that position in the first place. You can't start a situation and yell self-defense when it gets out of control.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Mar 31, 2012
Contrast this... Who is more free?

"If you are on my property without my permission, you are treading on thin ice. If you enter my house or my car without permission, you are dead." - Capitalist American

Meanwhile, here in my socialist state crime rates are so low that I do not fear people who happen upon my property, and I actually invite my fellow citizens to use it as a small park.

I sleep with my windows open and my doors unlocked generally, and often leave the house unlocked when I take short trips to the grocery store etc. I even had no lock on my front door for several days a couple of years ago. I could not have locked the door if I wanted.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Mar 31, 2012
My understanding is that due to new Libertarian law, in Florida you can.

"You can't start a situation and yell self-defense when it gets out of control." - Powerup1

As long as you "feel" your life is threatened you can murder anyone you like.

Truly that is a Libertarian/Randite Paradise.

More news stories

Genetic code of the deadly tsetse fly unraveled

Mining the genome of the disease-transmitting tsetse fly, researchers have revealed the genetic adaptions that allow it to have such unique biology and transmit disease to both humans and animals.