Posted on 09/09/2013 7:28:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I write this letter intending no disrespect concerning other comments about the Zimmerman trial or self-defense laws including Stand Your Ground. But, as Mr. Grossman correctly noted to his credit, these issues are being hotly debated and he invited further discussion. Other Longboat Key News readers seem to agree. The merit of such discussion, however, requires some correction of misunderstandings or inaccuracies.
With all due respect, it cannot reasonably be claimed or implied that the man with the gun has all the rights and no responsibilities; that self-defense rights are not subject to restraints; that Zimmerman’s self-defense right was altered because he was not authorized to carry a gun to defend others; or that no lives were saved that fateful night.
The right and responsibility that govern self-defense have been recognized for many years and defined by courts since at least the 1890’s. The U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, has issued many rulings affirming the right of self-defense. Demonstrating its prescience more than a hundred years ago, the Supreme Court in Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) ruled that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force nor is there even an obligation to consider whether one can retreat safely. Speaking for the Court, and quoting with approval a lower court decision, Justice Harlan wrote: “Indeed the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed….” Blackstone’s Commentaries describe the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense “as one of those rights which were necessary to preserve liberty and free institutions.” Perhaps the most colorful comment was the Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., classic: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” History has recorded a long standing appreciation of the necessity of self-defense rights, and modern case law and statutes rely on that jurisprudence to continue enforcing the right of self-defense.
The right of self-defense, however, is neither absolute nor unconditional. It remains the responsibility of the defendant, supported by evidence, to demonstrate that what he did was necessary to insure his safety or avoid great bodily harm. In the absence of such evidence (for example, if Zimmerman had not suffered injuries at the hand of Martin or if the gunshot was not at very close range), the right to self-defense may be successfully challenged. (It should be noted, however, that the mere threat of imminent physical harm, if reasonably believed, is sufficient; there is no need to wait for a pummeling to begin.) The forensic evidence in the Zimmerman trial speaks for itself. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the loss of Zimmerman’s life was imminent but spared that night only because he relied on his right of self-defense.
It also is disingenuous to imply that Zimmerman’s right of self-defense was somehow abridged because he was not authorized to carry a firearm on behalf of his fellow residents. In fact, Zimmerman made no such claim. He was permitted to carry and did carry a firearm for his personal protection and self-defense, and used it accordingly.
Although the Zimmerman trial concerned only self-defense, in the interest of completeness it should be noted that most jurisdictions (including Florida) permit a defendant to use reasonable force in the defense of third parties if it is reasonable that the defendant had the right to defend himself. Which prompts a question: If a crowded movie theater is interrupted by a gun-wielding lunatic shooting at will, would theater patrons be more comforted or less comforted knowing that half the audience had concealed carry permits?
The assertion that Stand Your Ground was the reason Zimmerman was not arrested should be put to rest. When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was supported by physical evidence and law enforcement officers were prohibited from making an arrest because they could not swear and affirm in good faith that there was probable cause a crime had been committed.
Finally, I can disagree with but still respect a differing opinion about whether self- defense and Stand Your Ground serve the best interests of a civilized society. But a serious debate cannot proceed if there is no common understanding about the “significance” of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution or that the right of civilians to bear arms and carry concealed weapons is more than merely “alleged.” A debate consists of an offering of proof to support contending points of view based on a proposition which, in turn, requires just such an acknowledgment of fundamental principles as defined by statute and case law.
I think you spelled his name wrong.
Isn’t it Wiener Hartenberger?
Nope, look at the link. It’s Werner.
You really think Zimmerman had his hand on his gun to intimidate the father?
Hand on your weapon, even in the holster, is the same as brandishing isn’t it?
The statement might be true in abstract or even in its practical effect but as a statement of law is questionable because it implies that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his use of self-defense was justified. It may vary with jurisdictions but in Florida, at least, the burden stays with the prosecutor.
No.
I think it was a poorly organized article, and I think Shelly and her Father showed up without coordination with the attorneys.
As far as Hand on your weapon, even in the holster, is the same as brandishing, I would not go there.
I could be viewed as menacing.
That’s what I thought. I’m sure Ayoob would concur.
As far as I am concerned you never even touch it unless you intend to follow through.
That’s how I view it. You don’t want anyone to know it’s there...ever.
I concur, and I don’t believe Zimmerman did it.
All charges were dropped by the family.
It think there is some serious PTSD in the family.
Understandably so.
He’s arguing against that thought. Read it again.
oh..i get it...nevermind
“As far as Hand on your weapon, even in the holster, is the same as brandishing, I would not go there.
I could be viewed as menacing”
You need to remember, too, that there are thousands of instances of people showing a weapon that caused a bad guy to back down. The NRA and John Lott have provided us with countless examples of “brandishing.”
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.