Posted on 04/21/2012 10:44:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The so-called “stand your ground” law that allowed neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman to shoot and kill Treyvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., without an initial arrest once was a principle that nearly every American believed in.
And we were reminded of its key provision every Saturday night in prime time when watching “Gunsmoke,” among the nation’s longest-running and most popular TV programs.
Each episode began with the same scene on Main Street in Dodge City, Kan., with Marshal Matt Dillon, played by James Arness, in a gun duel, staring at another man who stood 60 yards away. After several seconds of music and tension, the other man would reach for the handgun in his holster, which prompted Dillon to draw his gun faster and shoot him first.
No need for any investigation or police inquiry to determine whether it was a justified shooting because whichever cowboy drew last was standing his ground in self-defense.
Only two problems with this allusion. The first is that TV viewers understood that the law was needed in the West of the 19th century — when lawlessness prevailed, when you could not dial 911 and when every man carried a six-shooter or a rifle out in the open. Such circumstances, of course, did not apply to the America that watched westerns in the movie theater or on TV in the 1960s.
The second problem was that it was universally accepted that lethal self-defense was justifiable only against someone who was armed. Had Matt Dillon or Wyatt Earp or Lucas McCain of “The Rifleman” show tried to claim self-defense against an opponent who possessed only a club, slingshot or a bag of Skittles, not only would his reputation as a hero be jeopardized, he’d be thrown in jail and possibly sentenced to hang by Judge Roy Bean.
Fast forward 37 years, well past the last broadcast episode of “Gunsmoke”: Thanks to the National Rifle Association and its close friends like Florida Gov. Rick Scott, citizens are packing just like in the Wild West. In the state with the fewest gun restrictions in the country, Zimmerman’s right to carry the weapon he drew on Martin hasn’t been questioned.
But Florida’s NRA-loving legislators went the Wild West even one better — freeing pistol packers to fire on any man, woman or child, even if they’re not carrying a gun, as long as the shooter feared for his or her life.
I was not a resident of Florida in 2005 when Gov. Jeb Bush issued this license-to-kill en masse. So I am going to give its legislators the benefit of the doubt, confident that more than one must have pointed out that the law could be far too loosely interpreted — not only by bigots and paranoids but also by normal folks who happen to be temporarily disgruntled, disoriented, nervous or just naturally fearful of, say, teenagers, homeless people or strangers with moustaches, black hats or hooded sweatshirts.
What was everyone else thinking?
In the movie “Shane,” among the most highly acclaimed westerns of the aforementioned era, Jack Wilson, a kind of neighborhood watch captain hired by cattlemen, and played by Jack Palance, regularly got away with murder. He followed and confronted the poor homesteaders, threatening them with his malevolent grin and emasculating insults, driving them to make a move for a weapon out of fear and desperation, a move that cued their instant execution by the much-faster Wilson.
But even that sinister hit man was more regulated than Zimmerman, insofar as Wilson had to be careful not to shoot a homesteader who had only a hoe or a buggy whip or a can of iced tea.
After more than a month of protests and media debate, due process finally has been followed, with Special Prosecutor Angela Corey filing charges of second-degree murder against Zimmerman.
Whatever happens in the ensuing plea or trial, the next step should be repeal of the “stand your ground” law that permits people to act as judge, jury and executioner and that has led to the tripling of the number of so-called self-defense killings in Florida since its inception.
The law must be stricken from the books — not only in Florida but also in each of the other dozen or so states where legislators passed it while apparently temporarily insane.
****
David McGrath is an emeritus professor of English at the College of DuPage and author of “The Territory,” a story collection.
Even worse, he is being railroaded by a crooked State Attorney who is being permitted to do so by the governor, who, t is now clear, is a coward and a poltroon.
He should get a medal.
If he shot him and killed him to prevent escape (at that distance and with no threat), he'd be guilty of a crime.
In fact, his care and wisdom in shooting into the ground should get him extra credit.
The People of New Hampshire should get some credit, too, for straightening out the County Attorney before things got too far out of hand.
I think that our delegation of police powers to the Gov., which is evidenced by our ability, in NH, to fire our police force on popular Vote seems to intimate that we may detain a felon whose felony we witnessed and prevent his escape.
I agree that that the CA was a clown and ignored recient legislation or the spirit there of.
Only a liberal would think a person must be the victim of a criminal by having to flee. I noticed only the liberal East Cost States have such laws because they started with the flee requirement in the first place. We here in the West have never had such stupid liberal laws. Only an idiot would think a person must flee a criminal. If criminals don’t want to be beat to sh*t or dead then they had best not attack anyone.
How so?
(a) Mr. Zimmerman was on his way to the store, not on neighborhood watch duty when he spotted Mr. Martin and (b) as I understand it, he was on the phone to the non-emergency police number, not 911 as most people believe and (c) from the transcripts I’ve heard he wasn’t “stalking” Mr. Martin, merely watching him to see what he was up to when he was blindsided. You do realize that little Trayvon was suspended from school for acts that would’ve landed him in jail where you and I live, right? Therefore, he’d probably still be alive today.
In fact the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that." Which was merely stating it wasn't NECESSARY which is not the same thing as an order.
Even if the dispatcher did try to ORDER Zimmerman not to follow, so what? The police have no legal power to give that kind of order.
If I was a cop who lived in your neighborhood, maybe I should stop by your house every day and tell your wife to make me a sandwich and tell your kid to wash my car.
Not only that, but dispatchers are not normally sworn officers, but trained clerks. The lady at the DMV or unemployment office can’t give you orders and neither can this bureacrat.
I absolutely don't think you should "have to flee".
But, in your home and curtilage, there is no legitimate "third option" - which is "stay out of trouble". If a zombie kicks in your door, the trouble has arrived.
On the street, though, there are many, many chances to walk into or stay out of trouble. When I lived in Brooklyn in the 1970s, I avoided trouble all the time. I never thought of crossing the street for 3 Trayvons to be "fleeing", and I don't think CCW should embolden you to walk into trouble you could easily avoid.
Also, see above. I think Zimmerman is innocent by common law and Florida statute from before SYG, his case is not an SYG case.
I don't get this. If somebody comes at me with a club I can't defend myself? This is idiotic. Is this what the Prof is saying or am I misunderstanding him?
There’s a difference between “duty to flee” and “sense to stay out of trouble”.
This is what I don’t understand about SYG laws, and how they interact with the common law.
They guy attacking you with a club? Blow him away, and I’ll support you 100%.
Wade into a bar fight and kill a guy who gets the upper hand on you? Not so sure.
Walk down MLK Boulevard at 1am in your Jeff Davis T shirt, because you have a right to be there, but it’s only your CCW that overcomes your common sense? Don’t know about that, either.
BTW, it’s obvious to me that Zimmerman is innocent, with or without SYG.
Neighborhood watch is suppost to be observe and report.
Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch duty at the time of the incident. He was on his way out to run an errand.
Zimmerman stated that he was walking back to his car, and not following Martin, when he was attacked by Martin.
The prosecution CONCEDED in the Bond hearing that they have NO evidence to contradict that fact.
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated "I walked back to my car"?
GILBREATH: No.
The prosecution also conceded in the bond hearing that they have absolutely NO evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin assaulted him.
He was told by police dispatchers to break off following the scumbag but continued doing so {Police dispatchers are agents for the police}.
As I have corrected you but you pretend not to understand he was not "told to break off following."
A police dispatcher whether or not an "agent for the police" has NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER AROUND CITIZENS. You would make a good little subject for a police state, however.
He blundered into a situation he wasn't prepared or trained for.
Wrong. He was heading back to his car when he was sucker punched.
It sounds like he was looking for a fight.
Not according to all the reported facts. But just make up whatever the hell facts you feel like.
If you were driving home and saw a brush fire,and you called the fire dept and told them’I am going to put it out” and the dispatcher told you the same thing, would you still go into the field and stomp out the fire or would you let the fire department do it?
OF COURSE I WOULD PUT OUT THE DAMN FIRE IF I COULD. Rather than let it get out of control waiting for who knows how long before an official fire truck decides to show up.
Zimmerman walked to point E where he completed his call with the dispatcher.
He was walking back toward his car at point C when Martin assaulted him. The prosecution has conceded they do not have evidence that this was not what happened.
Martin was not walking home at the time of the altercation, but had double-backed to confront Zimmerman.
If Martin was actually walking directly home (in fact, his father's girlfriend's home), he would have been there before Zimmerman's call even ended.
__________________________________
They have no evidence that something didn't happen --- therefore it's true?
Meet the new boss dated goats in high school --- please provide evidence that this didn't happen.
Oh, btw...by your own map, z could not have been walking directly from point E to point C if he got jumped (as you say) at point F.
Indeed. "Innocent until proven guilty." The prosecution has to make the case based on the evidence. They likely will be unable to.
In this country, the prosecution has to PROVE a crime happened BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Citizens do not have to PROVE they DID NOT commit a crime.
The whole issue of "following" is a red herring. The prosecution conceded they do not have evidence that Zimmerman was not going back to his car at the time of the assault. But it does NOT MATTER.
The issue of "following" is being raised by the prosecution solely for public relations purposes. There seems to be a mentality among the public (and maybe here on FR) that if you follow a suspicious black youth in your neighborhood to see what he is up to, you deserve the beat-down you get.
Even if Zimmerman was following Martin at the time of the assault, SO WHAT? If you follow me down the street, does that give me the right to plant my fist on your face, and pound the crap out of you and try to crack your head open on the sidewalk?
The "profiling" matter is also a red herring (the prosecution conceded they were not talking about RACIAL profiling when they used that word in the affidavit). Both the "profiling" and the "following" are red herrings and have no legal signficance, if the prosecution has no evidence that it was racial profiling or that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, as appears clear from the bond hearing.
If you follow me down the street and I turn around and tell you to f off neither of us has done anything illegal or that would justify either of us assaulting the other.
The only relevant thing is WHO physically attacked the other and what was the nature of the physical attack.
If Martin assaulted Zimmerman as he stated in his police statement, he is justified in defending himself.
If Martin tried to smother him or tried to crack open his skull, as Zimmerman stated, then Martin is justified in using deadly force.
From the face of the charging affidavit and the concessions made at the bond hearing, the prosecution does not have evidence to support the charge made.
Please explain how the lack of proof that something didn’t happen has suddenly become proof that it did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.