|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shot for being suspiciously black
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm curious to know from American Shipmates whether this report is reasonably accurate.
I hadn't heard about the shooting until now, but it sure does sound, from this, like a case of a white person jumping to spectacular conclusions about black people/teenagers/people covering their head when it's raining.
It also sounds quite extraordinary that the police think that just because someone has CLAIMED self defence, the onus on them is to believe him until proved otherwise. There might of course be slightly more to it than that, but it's not looking great at the moment. Hence, no doubt, the protests.
[ 22. March 2012, 06:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
That report is inaccurate in two ways.
- Witnesses told police they heard the boy shouting for help, and the police 'corrected' them to say, 'No, you heard Zimmerman shouting for help.'
- Zimmerman said "Fucking Coons" on the 911 call, just after complaining that "they always get away".
Speaks for itself.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Okay, this report from closer media is disturbing the hell out of me.
There are witnesses. Clearly aural witnesses if not visual ones.
And also a 911 tape where cries for help can be heard. I would like to think that it would be possible to do some analysis on who it is that is calling for help on that tape.
[ 22. March 2012, 10:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea. As long as people are just watching and then calling the police if
they see something actually criminal going on like fighting or breaking into a car or house, then fine, but if these ordinary citizens are encouraged to carry and use guns then the whole concept seems like just asking for this sort of tragedy.
My son has been followed in his car, and terrified, by a man who thought he was going to make a citizen's arrest of an underage driver (son looked young for his age) and homeowners have, many times, called the police to come and question him when he's just been out walking the sidewalks for exercise, wearing nothing but shorts and T-shirt. It's not just African Americans who are profiled as dangerous but young men in general.
Unfortunately, there are lots of men and women who are a dangerous combination of fearful and self-important. They want to be the neighborhood hero by stopping a crime in action but most of them don't have the brains to spot the difference between a serial killer climbing through a window and a Girl Scout selling cookies at the front door.
I hope they bring this killer to trial and make an example of him. Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long. A few years ago a woman shot and killed an unarmed woman in a traffic dispute, and got away with it by using those words. Is that how this trigger happy jerk is getting away with a self-defense excuse? Where was the "equal force?" Maybe one of the ships lawyers can explain this but I don't get it at all.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea.
My understanding is that there was no neighborhood watch -- this guy just declared himself the captain of his own neighborhood watch of one, and went around "patrolling" his neighborhood armed with a handgun and a cell phone.
I'm kind of ambivalent about this sort of thing. The gun puts it over the top to my way of thinking. But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that. We have each other's back. But we don't go around shooting people we don't know -- we just make sure they know that their presence is not unnoticed.
--Tom Clune
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Forget Zimmerman. The The entire police force of Sanfordf should stand trial. And if they have a mayor and a town council they should as well. If they cannot guarantee the safety of people walking around, and they allow their cronies to shoot people they don't like just because they don't like them, then they deserve to go down. Every single last nostalgic-for-slavery bigoted murderer in uniform. This is not the first time things like that have happened there.
The citizens of that place should be ashamed to employ such thugs. They should be tearing down the walls of their courthouse with their bare hands to expunge their guilt.
Actions like this break the social contract. If nothing is done about it - if this is really what their poilice department is about - then there is no moral requirement on their victims to obey them. They are not law-enforcement agents, they are the criminals who have taken over the prison.
[ 22. March 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
If a police department is defined as a public safety organisation, then Sanford FL does not have a police dept. Certainly the Black people of Sanford don't have a police dept. They have a Klan in uniform whose purpose is to enable legalised murder to be inflicted on them. But this has been going on in many places in the US for a long time. This example is just particularly egregious, or perhaps it stands out merely because there happened to be some audio documentary evidence.
It is almost a basic part of parenting African-American youth, especially males, in the US -- North and South -- to train the youth how to act defensively for their own safety in certain situations that European-Americans in their unawareness don't have to face.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wonder about this whole "neighborhood watch," idea.
My understanding is that there was no neighborhood watch -- this guy just declared himself the captain of his own neighborhood watch of one, and went around "patrolling" his neighborhood armed with a handgun and a cell phone.
I'm kind of ambivalent about this sort of thing. The gun puts it over the top to my way of thinking. But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that. We have each other's back. But we don't go around shooting people we don't know -- we just make sure they know that their presence is not unnoticed.
--Tom Clune
National Watch Program - National Sheriffs' Association
It is my understanding that these are just to be an organized eyes and ears outfit. There's a world of difference between shooting a guy breaking into a home and shooting him for maybe, just possibly being up to something you ain't exactly sure about.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Zimmerman was told by police to cease following Martin. His failure to comply should have led to his arrest. I do not agree with the Florida law under which Zimmerman is currently being shielded, but ISTM, this defense fails even that permissive standard. Even if Zimmerman was threatened and attacked, he had placed himself in a situation that was unnecessary and avoidable. Non racist people are highly unlikely to use racist epithets in this context. Another strike against Zimmerman and the Florida police.
lilBuddha adds another place as best to be avoided.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It also sounds quite extraordinary that the police think that just because someone has CLAIMED self defence, the onus on them is to believe him until proved otherwise. There might of course be slightly more to it than that, but it's not looking great at the moment. Hence, no doubt, the protests.
Florida has a very extensive "stand your ground" law, which basically allows shootings like this if the shooter had "reasonable fears" for their personal safety. The Florida courts have been particularly gratuitous in accepting fears as reasonable, at least in the case of certain complexion of victim. And, of course, the police have a lot of discretion in making such determinations as well, insofar as they're the ones making the call about whether charges are warranted in the first place.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I hope they bring this killer to trial and make an example of him.
I tend to agree- with the caveat of not having all of the information. (Though what info I have seen looks quite bad.)
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long.
Here you lose me- thanks for tarring all gun owners in America with the same brush. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IF, and I stress the word *if*, Mr. Zimmerman was, indeed, being attacked and feared for his life- he may have been justified in shooting under the laws in almost every state in the US. (Not sure about a couple of them.) That said, everything I've heard so far seems to indicate this isn't the case. Speaking as one of the gun owners in question, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask Mr. Zimmerman to kindly get off my side.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Where was the "equal force?" Maybe one of the ships lawyers can explain this but I don't get it at all.
IANAL, but I have studied a good deal about self-defense law. At least where I live (and, as I understand it, this is fairly common language), the law doesn't require "equal force", it requires "reasonable force", which is generally defined as using enough force to stop the threat, but no more.
quote:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
<snip>
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;
<snip>
link
The use of deadly force has more specific requirements:
quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
link
Great bodily harm is defined as:
quote:
609.02 DEFINITIONS.
<snip>
Subd. 8.Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
link
Keeping in mind that the cites above are not from FL law (and so the specific wording may be different, but the concepts are most likely similar), the legal questions become a) did Mr. Zimmerman have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm? and b) who initiated the altercation? (Generally, one must be a "reluctant participant" to avail oneself of a self-defense claim.)
In short- it's not as simple as "American gun owners can just claim 'I feared for my life' and shoot whoever happens to catch their wrath at the moment". There's a whole lot more to it than that. But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.
Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.
Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Blatant racist profling combined with vigilantism; sounds like America. The level of paranoia and irrational fear that many people in this country have towards blacks is disgusting and unfortunately, if you're black you're supposed to know that putting your hood up when it begins to rain is a criminal act punishable by death.
This country is rotting from within.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.
I guess bumper stickers are different in your neck of the woods. Around here, every bumper sticker about guns that I've ever seen are of the "this car protected by Smith & Wesson" variety. The closest thing I can recall to an anti-gun bumper sticker is, "I support the right to arm bears," but I'm not sure that counts as anti-gun.
--Tom Clune
[ 22. March 2012, 15:39: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.
Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
This boy was inside a gated community because his father lived there. Zimmerman killed his neighbour's kid! The poor boy had just stepped out to get some sweets from a nearby shop.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there. I like that.
Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent, and any court that would find otherwise is not a court before which I would care to appear.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
Around here we just say something like "I'm not sure if they're home" or "are you looking for the so-and-so's house" or something else that isn't confrontational but does let them know they have been seen.
I did have a neighbor call the cops one time when some guys came by during the day in an unmarked van to do some flooring work. The neighbor didn't know we had scheduled the work. About four deputies showed up, I hear. We never heard about it until a few weeks later.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Blatant racist profling combined with vigilantism; sounds like America. The level of paranoia and irrational fear that many people in this country have towards blacks is disgusting and unfortunately, if you're black you're supposed to know that putting your hood up when it begins to rain is a criminal act punishable by death.
This country is rotting from within.
I agree. I visited a family in San Francisco a few years ago and they told me of a man who had been arrested in the neighbourhood for 'walking the street while black'. It turned out that he was the new postman.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I live in a small town where neighbors are likely to confront a stranger who walks up to your house when you're not home, and demand to know what they are doing there.
Except that the stranger would be perfectly within his legal rights to reply, "None of your pea-pickin' business!" or indeed simply to remain silent.
Yes, they may refuse to answer. That's not the point -- they have been put on notice that their presence has been observed. Anyone with larceny in their heart is likely to then move on. If they continue to lurk around the neighborhood, I would expect that the police would be called. I find all of that quite appropriate. Of course, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
Perhaps, but who can peer within the human heart? The stranger "continuing to lurk" may simply be conducting a survey of how many homeowners use a certain brand of pesticide on their bushes. Even if the police were summoned, he'd be under no greater obligation to answer their questions than he would the questions of the curious neighbor, unless the police suspected he has committed a crime (for which they'd need probable cause to do, such as a ring of master keys or a how-to manual on lock picking in his back pocket, or a pack of suspicious looking articles strapped to his back).
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Having spent the last month in a city very close to Sanford and quite similar demographically, I am not at all surprised that someone was shot for "walking while black." The level of bigotry here is astounding, and we're in a pretty ethnically diverse, growing city. The only difference I can tell between the bigotry in my redneck Rustbelt home and the bigotry in central Florida is that here it's masked behind Southern gentility...get one of those proper belles or gentlemen out of public earshot and into the privacy of their homes and you'll hear the sort of anti-African-American rhetoric you might hear in antebellum times.
There's also a strong anti-immigrant (at least dark-skinned immigrant) sentiment here...my feeling, after five weeks in Florida, is that I hope the immigrants win this particular culture war.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
New Yorker, that article is a giant lie.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
But that's too complex for a bumper sticker or the Brady campaign's web site.
I guess bumper stickers are different in your neck of the woods. Around here, every bumper sticker about guns that I've ever seen are of the "this car protected by Smith & Wesson" variety. The closest thing I can recall to an anti-gun bumper sticker is, "I support the right to arm bears," but I'm not sure that counts as anti-gun.
--Tom Clune
I've seen that one- and I rather like it, to tell the truth. But that's just my quirky sense of humor. I've always liked absurdism- and I appreciate the way(s) it can be used to bolster an argument.
We get a fair number of "save the children! ban guns!" type here (depending of what part of the state you're in), which are the ones I was referring to. YMMV, of course. (And apparently does.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.
Hmmmm... it starts with the red herring of "gangbanging" in Chicago which has nothing to do with this incident. No one doubts that other people were killed in the U.S. that day (as well as every other day). What makes this issue unique is the use of this specific gun law and whether it was misused. This is something for the courts to determine.
Also, the article's links don't really say what the article says they say.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
the red herring of "gangbanging" in Chicago
Yes! As in, "In Chicago, black people did crime. Meanwhile, in another part of America there was a crime involving another black person. Coincidence?"
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
New Yorker's linked article states irritation with speculative reporting then proceeds to do the same.
Credible? Perhaps not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't know what happened and I don't know if this article is right or wrong; but it raises other issues that might have factored in this matter.
You have as good an idea of what happened as anyone else posting here.
In one of the linked articles, it says
quote:
Investigators with the Sanford Police Department are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during an altercation which resulted in a fatal shooting in the Twin Lakes area. The shooting happened just after 7 p.m. Sunday evening on Twin Trees Lane. A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
It seems to me that if Zimmerman had left his gun at home, stuck to Neighborhood Watch instead of turning into Neighborhood Vigilante there'd be even less talk here at SOF about it than is said about the Chicago body counts. If he'd shot Martin for breaking into his house, that would be ok, too.
I've not ever heard of the "stand your ground" defense before as being an actual law. The closest would be many years ago on Hill Street Blues when Forest Whitaker explained that he shot and killed a bus driver because "he was in my face".
[ 22. March 2012, 19:53: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Gun owners in America have been getting away with the, "I feared for my life," legal defense for too long.
Here you lose me- thanks for tarring all gun owners in America with the same brush.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners were accustomed to killing unarmed people and using the, "I feared for my life," excuse. I only have an issue with the ones who do.
quote:
[qb]609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
That's what I'm talking about. I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger. "Reasonably believes exposes the actor to great bodily harm," can be interpreted quite loosely. A person alone at night may feel very afraid when a stranger knocks on his/her door. Maybe the stranger is a short haired young woman in jeans, running from a rapist, but the home owner's fear is not unreasonalbe. What is unreasonable is the law that gives them permission to shoot without further investigation.
Since I happen to believe that, quite often, the people most likely to own handguns are the people most fearful of home invasions and assault, then right away we have a bad situation if "reasonable fear," gives them permission to kill.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all gun owners were accustomed to killing unarmed people and using the, "I feared for my life," excuse. I only have an issue with the ones who do.
Fair enough. So do I.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
That's what I'm talking about. I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger. "Reasonably believes exposes the actor to great bodily harm," can be interpreted quite loosely. A person alone at night may feel very afraid when a stranger knocks on his/her door. Maybe the stranger is a short haired young woman in jeans, running from a rapist, but the home owner's fear is not unreasonalbe. What is unreasonable is the law that gives them permission to shoot without further investigation.
Since I happen to believe that, quite often, the people most likely to own handguns are the people most fearful of home invasions and assault, then right away we have a bad situation if "reasonable fear," gives them permission to kill.
In practice, at least here, the interpretation is pretty strict- the definition of "great bodily harm" is spelled out in statute, and the term "reasonable fear" is understood to mean that the average person (i.e., someone without any great amount of training or knowledge) would be in fear of it occurring. I can't speak for FL, however, or how it would be interpreted there.
My main point was that gun owners, as a whole, aren't all alike, and don't always agree- I'm an admin on a gun-centered web forum, and I can assure you the debate has been hot and heavy about this case. The majority seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think lots of courts, police and gun owners alike, believe that the law you quoted does give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger.
Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I can't speak for FL, however, or how it would be interpreted there.
<snip>
The majority seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.
So, given that you "can't speak for FL", how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the legal code regarding guns (or the way that code is enforced "on the ground") in that state? That seems kind of like a knee-jerk default position.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The majority [on the gun-users forum] seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.
NO. I saw something similar from a US lawyer in a UK news item earlier. He said that there's nothing wrong with the law as it stands - the issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law.
NO. One issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law but if he did, it certainly calls attention to whether the law or its application needs changing. No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
So, given that you "can't speak for FL", how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the legal code regarding guns (or the way that code is enforced "on the ground") in that state? That seems kind of like a knee-jerk default position.
I didn't- I merely suggested that calls to change the law *may* just be a bit premature, without seeing how it actually plays out in court.
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
Let's be honest. In practical terms, the law as it exists on the ground does "give them the right to kill if they believe they are in danger", even if they're deliberately provoking that danger. That's one of the things clearly illustrated by this case.
I disagree. Here, at least, one must be a "reluctant participant"; initiating the physical confrontation would lead (and has led) to murder charges.
I think this is the FL statute in question:
quote:
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
<snip>
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
link
The first line "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" seems to negate the theory that the law protects the aggressor; If a person started the physical encounter, he's committing an unlawful act, and would not be able to avail himself of this defense.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It is my understanding that these are just to be an organized eyes and ears outfit. There's a world of difference between shooting a guy breaking into a home and shooting him for maybe, just possibly being up to something you ain't exactly sure about.
Exactly right, Mere Nick. In fact, you can argue that the neighbors providing an "aural witness" to what was going on is a better example of what a neighborhood watch is supposed to do.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.
Hold on, I believe the incident is considered fine as long as a white person kills a black person. Think we might see a difference of opinion should the colours be reversed.
Sarcasm aside, the "Castle defense" is questionable, this law is insane.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The majority [on the gun-users forum] seem to feel about as I do, however- this case is an outlier that should be handled by the FL courts, not a reason to revamp the laws without a lot of consideration.
NO. I saw something similar from a US lawyer in a UK news item earlier. He said that there's nothing wrong with the law as it stands - the issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law.
NO. One issue is whether Zimmerman acted within the law but if he did, it certainly calls attention to whether the law or its application needs changing. No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.
Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?
Because it leaves too much open to interpretation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Here again, until we see how it actually plays out in court, how would we know the law needs changing?
When we see folks playing Neighborhood Vigilante distributing street justice and then hiding behind it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
No-one can claim the law is fine as it is when this sort of thing can happen.
That assumes the law has correctly been applied.
As LilBuddha said up thread, and as the video I linked to said, there is a school of legal thought that even WITH Florida's quite permissive self-defense law, this wasn't a case of self-defense.
And from the small amount I know, I'm joining the school of thought. One of the biggest worries here is that the police have set a threshhold so low that they will accept you were defending yourself by following someone around. It doesn't look to me, or to many other people, that the text of the law actually permits such behaviour.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this a little further. I think the real source of bother here is simply that it doesn't feel as if the self-defence claim is being tested.
No doubt some people wouldn't be satisifed until Zimmermann was convicted. But for many, including myself, it's more a sense that a court should be deciding it. Or even, it's that the police should LOOK like they were investigating it more carefully. So that they would be in a position to explain, lucidly and clearly, why they were satisfied, for example, that it was Zimmermann shouting for help. And why they were satisfied that Trayvon attacked him, not the other way around.
Of course, even if Trayvon did start punching Zimmermann, it'd be rather interesting to consider self-defence from Trayvon's point of view. Man with a gun starts following me around. Hmm. I might use reasonable force against him.
Even if it was Zimmermann calling for help, the nature of the incident takes on a very different character depending on exactly when you take the 'incident' as having started. Even if you take Zimmermann as telling the truth, as he sees it, I don't think it's an open and shut case that he's within the law. I think it's the kind of case that a court should be examining. Which will only happen if he's charged.
It does remind me a little of a case here. I didn't know any of the people directly involved, but I knew the mother of a man who shot 2 other men dead, and a friend of mine from another context was a friend and former co-worker of one of the dead men.
It was ruled self-defence. But only after a trial where the reasons why he was terrified for his life were made apparent and aired in a public forum.
[ 22. March 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Addendum: I think it's worth adding that in the case here, the shooter was in some ways portrayed in a bad light (although still not as bad as this Florida case, in that the dead men here came to the shooter's house. WHY they came to the house became a central part of the case).
One of the things his mother was rather upset about was that the local media claimed the 2 men were shot with a 'sawn-off shotgun'.
Because it made her son look like he was already a criminal. Who has a sawn-off shotgun? Why do you saw the barrel off a shotgun?
The truth was, he shot them with a short-barrel shotgun that was specifically designed that way for legitimate uses, that he hadn't altered, and which he had completely legally for his work. A very small change between the facts and the media presentation of the story made a big difference in public perception towards her son.
But a court is able to sort that kind of thing out.
[ 22. March 2012, 23:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.
Yeah, because obviously the ENTIRE police department was in on it, right? Especially the low ranked guys who weren't on shift at the time.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The entire police department should be locked in stocks outdoors in the rain for 72 hours and forced to watch a continual loop of In the heat of the night while passers-by throw shit in their faces. And then sacked without compensation.
Yeah, because obviously the ENTIRE police department was in on it, right? Especially the low ranked guys who weren't on shift at the time.
While I definitely believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, in all too many of these small-city and town police departments this sort of activity is representative of the culture that permeates the whole police dept.
That is why i said in my earlier post that in such towns African-Americans (and other non-"whites") don't have a police dept. if police dept. is defined as a public safety service.
What i would do in such a case is to suspend the entire dept. and bring in another more law-abiding agency to manage public safety functions. Then after appropriate investigation of the suspended police dept., if there were actually decent individuals found, they could become part of a new or reformed police dept. The others should not be allowed to ever again be a police officer.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think you're confusing police culture issues with police actions in a particular case. One may well contribute to the other, and both need investigation and addressing, but suspending or sacking entire police departments strikes me as a blunt knee-jerk response that is likely to be counterproductive.
Any police force member who didn't have a problem with racial issues beforehand sure as hell WILL have after you tell them all, universally, how they're all horrible and incompetent.
Honestly, how are these variations on "all police are racists" any different to all the variations of "all blacks are criminals"?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So, instead of a trial, which would have some sort of rules and procedures which would make the full disclosure and arguments visible, we are to have grandstanding politicians at various levels of government set up "enquiries" and "Grand Juries" that can do whatever they want with what may or may not be evidence.
Doesn't sound like a particularly civilised way of doing things.
But, then, the victim was black, so, like the Alice in Wonderland version, "verdict first, trial later". He was black, so he was a criminal, and therefore should have been shot.
Is there any way that the NRA can make a case that this was a legitimate use of a gun?
Don't answer that, I know the answer, it is just too depressing to say it.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
It's spring break right now, so there's teenagers everywhere. They ALL wear hoodies. Both in the affluent West side and the more ordinary East side. Lots of grownups were wearing them too. (It rained and snowed today.) Most of the kids were also wearing headphones, which means they might not hear someone calling out a warning to them. (In fact, we just had an incident where a police dog chomped on a suspect who had no idea he was being arrested because of his damn headphones.)
Perhaps the law on self-defense isn't tight enough, perhaps we don't have all the info in this case. Whatevs. ISTM the really awful thing is that these folks are living in a gated community in a state of fear, and a young man - just doing what teenagers do - is dead because of that fear. These folks don't need Neighbourhood Watch, they need to be a neighbourhood. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... Of course, even if Trayvon did start punching Zimmermann, it'd be rather interesting to consider self-defence from Trayvon's point of view. Man with a gun starts following me around. Hmm. I might use reasonable force against him.
...
And another thing about teenagers - they seem unable to call 911 or ask for help from a passerby. They'll just phone a parent, boy/girlfriend, uncle, whatever. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I have to confess I don't understand this whole 'gated community' business very well. I'm aware such things exist, but that's about it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
