Florida's "stand your ground" law applied to Trayvon Martin also

Driving around in my car today, listening to political talk on satellite radio, I kept hearing people say, "Trayvon Martin had a right to 'stand his ground' also." Makes a lot of sense.

There Martin is, walking along, minding his own business, when a guy starts following him in an aggressive, intrusive manner. Eventually they get into some sort of altercation. At some point Martin realizes George Zimmerman has a gun. 

Florida's Stand Your Ground law says you don't have to flee if you fear for your life, or if you are threatened with bodily harm. You can defend yourself on the spot. 

So likely if Trayvon Martin had beaten Zimmerman to a pulp, even killing him with his bare hands, Martin could have gotten off by claiming that he thought he faced death or bodily harm -- just as Zimmerman did, garnering a "not guilty" verdict that absolved him of manslaughter or murder.

As noted in my previous post, Martin wouldn't even had to prove that he truly did face death or bodily harm; all that is necesssay is thinking that you are.

This shows the absurdity of Stand Your Ground laws. In this case, either Zimmerman or Martin could have used that Florida law to escape punishment. But Martin died in the altercation, so only Zimmerman got to claim self-defense.

Martin clearly could have also, though, if he had lived and Zimmerman had died.

After all, Zimmerman was the guy who got out of his car with a gun and followed the teenager in the dark. If a guy with a gun is following you in a threatening fashion, you certainly have a right to defend yourself.

Thus Stand Your Ground laws reward the survivor, not the deceased, even if the survivor was the person who provoked an altercation. Just tell a jury "I feared for my life," and you can get away with murder. Literally. 

Hit men must be carefully studying Florida's Stand Your Ground law and the Zimmerman trial. It's a great way to murder someone legally.

All you have to do is confront them in a private place where there aren't any witnesses, then shoot the person. Make sure you bang your head on the ground several times and punch yourself hard enough to break your nose. Then claim that you feared for your life -- naturally leaving out the inconvenient truth that you initiated the encounter and were the aggressor.

I just signed a petition to boycott Florida tourism until the state's Stand Your Ground law is repealed. Its too dangerous to visit Florida when anyone can kill you for no reason other than their claim that they feared death or bodily harm.

Which gets me back to my post about free will and the justice system.

Neuroscientists know that we humans are crappy at identifying the reasons why we do something. We're clueless about the many unconscious causes of our behavior. Yet we make up explanations for our actions because we are meaning-seeking animals who hate to say "I don't know."

I'm not claiming that considerations of motivation never have a place in legal proceedings. But by and large, I believe that the objective facts are a better guide to whether someone should be punished for a crime.

In the Zimmerman case, the jury should have focused on who was the aggressor here. As noted above, both Zimmerman and Martin could claim that they feared death or bodily harm. Yet the juror who has spoken about the deliberations only mentioned Zimmerman's right to self-defense, not Martin's.

Plus, she ignored Zimmerman's behavior that initiated the confrontation.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.

Disgusting. Seemingly the jurors ignored Martin's right to defend himself from a man with a gun who was following him around in the dark. The jury sure appears to have committed a travesty of justice.   

 

Comments

[Royal Evan]

Only Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were present, only one of them can say what happened - yet millions of people on the internet "know" what happened and why it happened, and they know those not in agreement are wrong.

When knowledge comes from within rather than without, truth remains hidden and ignorance abounds in our lives, in our interactions, in our laws, in our tragedies.

I do not know what happened in Florida and will never be able to truly learn what happened. I do know juries cannot outperform the attorneys or judge, that they have no way to make good decisions from bad laws. I won't abuse the jury but will abuse those responsible for a law that led the jury's decision. Many other states have a very similar law, brought to you in part by the corporate lobbyists at ALEC and legislators to which ALEC generously 'contributes campaign funds'.

[Sunday]

This is the first intelligible writing I have found on the internet today. If we put race aside and look at the real facts, which were, Zimmerman followed, got out of his car with a loaded already engaged firearm, got into an altercation, and shot an unarmed teenager just yards away from his home. That's all we do know. You made so many clear points here I was wondering why no one else seemed to state exactly what you did.

[tucson]

What you may not know about Trayvon and the media's coverage of this affair (10 minute video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls#t=8s

[Moonover]

It's worth noting that 'stand your ground' did not apply in the Zimmerman case since Martin had Zimmerman physically pinned down.

Having said that - had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman he could very well have invoked 'stand your ground'. But despite the perception, you don't merely have to say that you felt threatened - there has to be evidence to support the claim. So the problem is that Martin would have had to convince the police and then probably a jury that he was under threat of bodily harm or death. This would have been difficult especially considering the fact that, according to the 911 operator, Zimmerman had stopped following and was on his way back to his truck when Martin attacked him. The 'stand your ground' law is highly unlikely to apply when the perceived threat is moving away from you.

On the other hand, it is very clear from physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Zimmerman was being physically harmed.

[tucson]

Trayvon was not an innocent looking little kid:

reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130717004-footage-media.html

[Brian Hines]

I heartily agree with this letter to the editor in our local newspaper, the Statesman Journal, today. George Zimmerman was the one who instigated the confrontation. Zimmerman was the one who broke Neighborhood Watch rules and ignored what he was told by the 911 operator.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130723/OPINION/307230007/Letter-Conservatives-lack-compassion-Trayvon-Martin-sickening
-------------------------
From the beginning, the proverbial cards were stacked against any justice for Trayvon Martin. His only mistake was walking home from a 7-Eleven store with a bag of Skittles on the night that George Zimmerman was on patrol and ended up with a bullet to the heart.

The judge did not allow “race” to be part of the debate, although racial profiling absolutely played a huge part in this boy’s death.

Would you people be as heartless and cavalier if it had been your child?

These are guidelines for the Neighborhood Watch Program across the country:

• Undergoes training by law enforcement and has their support;

• Works in teams;

• Wears identifying clothing or reflective clothing or patches;

• Never carries weapons of any kind;

• Never challenges anyone;

• Always carries a pad and pencil and a flashlight if it is dark;

• Is courteous and helpful to residents of the area being patrolled;

• Keeps logs and files reports with the local law enforcement agency.

The incredible lack of compassion for this boy and his family from conservatives is disgusting. And you call yourselves Christians? Shame on you.

Suzanne Devlin

Turner

[tucson]

I am unable to provide the picture of 17 year old Trayvon, but he was a big kid with gang tattoos, gold teeth and rather "hard" looking. The following was associated with that picture.

For those of us who thought we were well informed and weren't.....quite the realty check.

That old adage applies here: "there are two sides to every story." We don't always get the truth from the media. One of my favorite rants - the liberal controlled media, television news, newspapers, magazines, radio; all continue to show 12 year old Trayvon; NOT 17 year old Trayvon.

They continue to show the 5 year old picture BECAUSE it helps to cement in your mind the cute, little, hoodie-wearing youngster who was stalked by this monster
.
In reality "little Trayvon" at the time of his death stood almost 6'2" tall and weighed 175 muscular pounds. He had numerous run ins with authorities (both at school and local police), had been stopped and almost arrested two days before his death for smacking a bus driver in the face, because the driver refused to let him ride for free. He was released because the driver was told not to press charges by the bus company and to continue on his route.

When "little Trayvon" was suspended at school it was not only because he tried to bring a little marijuana in with him, he was in possession of wedding rings and other jewelry, watches, etc. that he said he "found" along with a large screwdriver while on the way to school that day. The jewelry was turned over to the Police by the school.

I am not trying to say this kid deserved to die. I am saying the media in the USA is controlled by liberals who twist and distort what you see and hear in order for you to see things their way.

>Not a single paper has printed RECENT photos of this kid, because it would not keep your interest in this case.

Not a single paper will admit that this kid was a marijuana dealer.
>His friends on Facebook all say he had the "best plants". Not a single paper will show you any of his recent photos where he shows off a mouthful of gold teeth and all of his tattoos.

Not a single newspaper will tell the news like it really is....and NOT how they want you to think it is...

President King Obama looked at the FIVE year old photo the media chose to show the Nation and said, "If I had a son...he would look like Trayvon.." So from that comment should I assume you did not bother to look for the facts in this shooting..or should I assume you want a son who is a 17 year old drug dealing, gold teethed, tattooed thug whose name on one of his facebook profiles was "Wild Nigga" who 'finds" jewelry and burglary tools on the way to school?

A fair and impartial news media in the USA ? One that does not follow the liberal agenda? Is NOT looking to further divide this already fractured Nation?

Never trust the news media for anything.

[Richard Windsor]

The facts contained in tucson’s powerful video shatter the premise of the blog host’s argument.

Liberal opportunists and the liberal media have hijacked the Martin-Zimmerman case to make it something it was not. Had it been a case of stand your ground, the defense would have used that shield. They didn’t. Had it been a case about race, the prosecution would have charged a hate crime. They didn’t.

This country isn’t nearly as charged with racial tension as the race baiters would have you believe. In 2008, conservatives defeated at the polls largely anticipated a silver lining of improved race relations under the leadership of the nation’s first black president. Instead the American people got a president who sees race relations like he sees everything else – something to be politically exploited.

In the case of Martin-Zimmerman, Obama and Holder jumped onboard with race hustling opportunists Sharpton and Jackson – the likes of which Booker T. Washington warned about a century ago:

“There is another class of coloured people (…and today whites as well…) who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington