Trayvon Martin.

Dux, would it influence your position if I told you that a *GREAT* majority of cases *never* go to trial anyway? In a hypothetical SYG hearing that loses, the next step would likely be a plea-bargain, instead of a trial.

In fact, the Supreme Court has recently recognized plea-bargaining as how the majority of the criminal-justice system works--so much so that they've instituted standards and legal recourse for bad pleas. I know I'm not citing statistics, but I'm sure they'll find this true.

I would contend that SYG is really not an enabler. Relaxed CCW laws? Maybe (as I'm sure you've heard of sense-less firearm related double-homicides that stemmed from road rage). I'm not going to pretend I know the proper standard that should be instituted for CCW, though. I'm just glad I live in a state that trusts me enough to carry a gun.

 

I dont like these laws, but I could live with them if they provided protections in the interests of the dead victim equal to or greater than the protections for the shooter.

 

In this specific case, I would again, show that the decedent was unarmed, and that the defendant had no injuries. Oh and the 911 tapes. And the Testimony of the decedent's girlfriend, who allegedly spoke w/ him moments before the scuffle.

In other words, you have very specific, and helpful facts:
1.) Unarmed guy killed.
2.) Armed guy unscathed.
3.) Armed guy instigates encounter.
4.) Armed guy has a prior arrest for resisting w/ violence (but I think that would be excluded due to the rules of evidence).

I also want to stress, in my limited experience as an attorney, if Zimmerman had injuries or wounds, the police would have taken pictures of the injuries. AFAIK, none have come forth.

Finally, I also want to stress that I hope Zimmerman gets a fair trial. So many times I've dealt with irascible ASAs (or ADAs as Law & Order calls them) who, but for political pressure, would give me a good plea-bargain.

 

Sorry, but putting aside the fact that I dont believe these laws should apply beyond protecting one's home and property, the particular law in FL is too broad for me and slanted in favor of protecting the shooter.

ps. I do appreciate being able to discuss it rationally with you and Cyn. Personally, it is refreshing for a change!

 

It says so on the law itself:
"(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
and immunity extends to "As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant."

This has been further strengthened by the supreme court of Florida in Dennis v Florida:
"Section 776.032 does not limit its grant of immunity to cases where the material facts are undisputed."
"We also reject the State‟s contention that the pretrial hearing on immunity in a criminal case should test merely whether the State has probable cause to believe the defendant‟s use of force was not legally justified."
"Accordingly, the grant of immunity from “criminal prosecution” in section 776.032 must be interpreted in a manner that provides the defendant with more protection from prosecution for a justified use of force than the probable cause determination previously provided to the defendant by rule."


So Florida's law and supreme court actually establish that the state needs more than probable cause that the use of force was unlawful before it can detain a person, much less charge or try them. Add to that the fact that law explicitly allows for the aggressor to use a stand your ground defense:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" and things can get complicated.

Also, keep in mind that the statute speaks of immunity, extensive to other areas and civil suits. That is, a pre trial grant of immunity goes beyond just dismissing the charges.

 

Anderson Cooper had Martin's parents and their lawyer on yesterday. There were a couple of interesting points. The Sanford PD has been claiming that Mary Kutcher, the witness who claims to have seen Zimmerman kneeling atop Martin who was face down on the ground has changed her story to make Zimmerman look bad. She claims that she has not, that she gave the same statement to the police, and signed it. The police have not as yet released a copy of that signed statement.

IANAL, but the CNN legal analyst, who is, says that there is a very plain caveat in the SYG law... if you chose to follow someone, for any reason, you lose the protection of the law. This doesn't mean simply walking in the same direction, but if there is an overt act of following the other person, you become the aggressor, regardless of your intention, and you MAY NOT claim self-defense. It MUST go to a judge for that decsision.

As well, given that provision, allowing Zimmerman to go free has destroyed all forensic evidence that his clothing and body might have provided. Unacceptable in any rational analysis.

 

i only have a couple minutes, so apologies up front if this ends up being too abstact.

my point in earlier posts is not directed toward the law itself yet.
what is a threat? it's an inference made on the basis of a given situation.
what informs an inference? all kinds of cognitive/cultural material that is independent of a given material situation. no-one who is serious about epistemology imagines that situations, even simple ones like sitting in a chair and looking at a rock, are built up from a material encounter. from the outset, experience is linguistically mediated, so categorically mediated. categories (like nouns) do not operate in isolation either, but are bundled with other categories into what you can call cognitive patterns. those patterns form boundaries that shape the outcomes of inferences---they fill in gaps, provide meanings, shape assessments, etc.

so say that a threat is the result of an inference. under pressure, the basis for these inferences tends toward the automatic.

i think that a primary unspoken motivation behind such laws is the sense of petit bourgeois threat due increasing class conflict. it's a displacement of status anxiety. it's a reaction (in several senses) to a perception of increased "crime"---which i put in quotes because the motor of this perception as much the image streams that shape one's sense of where one is in an experience-distant mode---and much of how people understand themselves in their worlds is based on constructions that make sense of embeddedness in contexts that exceed the immediate, that go beyond what is directly around you.

it is not really open to dispute that the dominant american ideologies has a Problem with talking about class. it is also not really open to dispute that the dominant media apparatus has a tendency to racialize class divisions. it is also not open to dispute that this racialization of class plays into more problematic racist attitudes in particular subcultures in particular parts of the country---obviously, we now see this at work in the zimmerman case, in the non-response of the police etc. racism is a cultural phenomenon that, in the contemporary media environment, leans significantly on the racialized displacement of class conflict that finds support in both very local networks (families, small communities) and in broader, rightwing political contexts (not all, but let's not pretend that this is not a Problem for the far right and this in some parts of the country more obviously than others)

that would mean that in the inference that enables X to form a judgment of being-threatened---taking zimmerman as but an extreme example, but an example nonetheless---these patterns of racist assumptions and imagery can and will play a non-trivial role in generating the sense of threat---which is what gets the whole cowboy scenario into motion that syg legitimates.

so if racist outcomes are a problem, and if you grant for the sake of argument that the laws are not technically problematic (i think they are, but that's another matter) and are not in themselves problematic (and i think they are), it follows that the issue here, that gets condensed into the zimmerman case, is the role of ambient racism in enabling actions like his (and a whole range of similar actions that may or may not have similar outcomes--for example, the cops could actually respond, which would make the case invisible, yes?) in making inferences like the one that he engaged in that resulted in his taking treyvon martin as some kind of "threat" seem legitimate.

if we are going to be stuck with these laws, then it behooves the people who support them to mobilize against this sort of ambient racism---if they like their cowboy gun law---because if they dont it will generate more racist (seeming?) outcomes and will eventually start getting thrown out. because it is simply not the case that consequences are not used in determining the legitimacy of a given law.

that's the argument in more explicit terms.

i gotta go.

 

But i would refer you to the law itself that dippin posted:

This gives the police, not the prosecutor or the courts, the power of discretion.

IMO, this gives suspects protections from arrest and prosecution at the expense of the goal of the law itself -- to protect the public. It needs to be changed.

 

No. Again, the text of the law protects those who initiated conflict as well, provided they either tried to disengage after they initiated the conflict or that they had no way to escape after they initiated the conflict:

""The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" and things can get complicated."

The PD clearly messed up, but even if you agree with the basic principle of the stand your ground law, Florida's version is very poorly written.

 

I am using my interpretation of both the facts, the law and how a reasonable person would react given the circumstances.

You are unnecessarily confusing the issue. Sure, we can find a lawyer to argue any side of this issue, you could even find a lawyer to argue the existence of Santa Clause, that is not the point. A more important question is what do you think given the known facts? If you think Trayvon's killer has an argument that he could have reasonably perceived his life was in danger, then we have something to talk about. If not, what is your point? In my mind the "Stand Your Ground" law does not apply, self-defense does not apply. If person A initiates an attack/confrontation and person B responds, sure at some point person A may perceive his life is in danger, but no court would consider person A's actions self-defense or "stand your ground" given a reasonable response from person B.

Also there is already case law on "stand your ground". For example under the circumstances of, a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, forcible robbery or burglary, a person has a right to "stand your ground" in self-defense.

 

clearly, the law was being applied from jump, ace. zimmerman"applied" it. so trayvon martin is quite dead. the local cops "applied" it when they made no arrest, determining for themselves the outcome of a case that should have gone to trial.

so what's your point?

 

First, I can respect your opinion. Second, if you think the answer to gun violence is increased regulation, first, and then a response to broader issues - we may find some common ground. I have no objection to gun registration, waiting periods, required training, testing, restrictions on where people can exercise conceal carry, banning certain types of guns and ammunition, mandatory gun safety technology i.e. - finger print type safetys, increased criminal penalties for negligent gun use, and some other things. I am not a gun nut. I understand what we are dealing with.

I lived in the LA area during the LA riots, I lived in a Condo community - some of us organized armed guard patrols of the entrances to our community. It allow many to sleep more comfortably as the city of LA was in chaos.

I also live in LA when the Northridge earthquake occurred and I was near the epicenter. Again, we organized armed patrols. In both circumstances there was no looting or crimes that occurred within our community.

My father was born and raised in Elaine Arkansas (I was born in a nearby city in 1960, he was born in the late 30's), my father was raised under the cloud of the Elaine Massecre, in 1919. People don't forget stuff like that, and it gets passed down. There was two general responses after the event, some simply hoped things would get better, some prepared to defend themselves if it ever happened again. Being passive is not my nature, it is not my father's nature. Neither he nor I would ever initiate violence but we would never be victim to it without a fight.


Elaine Massacre - Encyclopedia of Arkansas

In answer to your question, yes, I carry some irrational fears. The manner in which authorities are handling the Trayvon killing is either going to feed my irrational fears or help me get over them. I when I write about increasing frustrations and the need for leadership, I am clearly stating what is needed. If I were in charge, I would fast track this issue and get it resolved, now. If they want to present the facts to a Grand Jury, do it today. We know what the material evidence is, we know what the law is, there is no legitimate reason for any further delay.
--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM ---

Premeditation.
Failure to follow instructions from authorities.
Pursuit.
Initiation of a confrontation.
The victim was not armed.
The victim had no means to inflict deadly force while the murderer was in the safe confines of his vehicle.

what more do we need?

 

I think rb sums up my thinking really well in post 67.

Gun laws may be 'perfect' in theory, if that is one's thinking. But humans are not. To even the most rational person, situations of crisis and conflict can easily be misperceived leading to errors in judgment and inappropriate responses. It happens to the police all the time, as we all know. Why questioning the addition of a gun to these situations is so threatening says a lot to me about the people who advocate so strongly for these laws. It says to me that what they are advocating for is the object, the gun, rather than what is best for our communities. I can't hang with that. In order for a person like myself who is pretty open-minded about guns in general to feel confident about the mission of 'the gun lobby,' I would have to see a major evolution in its ideology and values.

 

When you use the word "enabled" in this circumstance it begins to get ambiguous real fast. and I can only think of examples to illustrate what I mean.

The internet, "enables", cyber bullying. To you get rid of the internet to end cyber bullying?
Alcohol "enables" alcoholism. To control alcoholism, do you re-enact prohibition?

I could continue with more and different types of examples, but I think the point is made, so I am not sure where you would want to go with this line of thinking in the context of the word "enabled".

 

It's not complicated. By telling someone they have the right to carry a firearm for 'protection,' you are telling them that they have the right to determine when to use it. I haven't said anything about getting rid of guns, but your response is a perfect example of the observation I make in my previous post.

 

Read the law. The law explicitly allows for the person who initiates a conflict to use a stand your ground defense, in which case the state has to show more than probably cause that that defense is false before even arresting the person. The law also says nothing about whether the threat of deadly force is real, only if it is perceived as real.

There is no excuse for the sloppiness of the PD, but, again, the law in its plain text goes way beyond allowing someone to "Stand their ground."

 

My thinking is this. I don't know anything about the origin of the old adage 'if you want my gun, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers' but I imagine that person is long since dead. It's time for a new philosophy. Otherwise you're going to continue to find yourselves in conflict on this matter and continue to have people like me think you're a bunch of nuts.

 

I don't have the right to determine when to use a firearm. The law determines when I can and can not use a fire arm. If I use a firearm when it is illegal to do so, I have committed a crime. The right to bear/carry/own is different from using it. In order to qualify for conceal carry, the person has to know that in order to qualify.

Trayvon's murderer committed a crime. I say his crime is murder, others may disagree, but I think all reasonable people can agree that the use of deadly force with the use of his gun was a crime. There was no reason for him to even show his weapon, brandishing - which should be a crime in Florida if it is not. Discharging a weapon within city limits, may be a crime. Perhaps if not murder, the crime is manslaughter. Perhaps involuntary manslaughter. Perhaps he failed to comply with law enforcement instructions.

The word "enabled" needs clarification, that is what I am seeking.