Victim of Perceived Thug Still Sitting in Jail

Well, I guess it's time to watch some riots.

Right verdict but a bad law.
 
No surprise there. A lot of us went into this buying into the main narrative about how he profiled, stalked, and murdered Trayvon. But after following the case and watching all the evidence fall in favor of Zimmerman and watching the prosecution's case weaken second by second, I think most of us knew this would happen.
 
Nope. It is no surprise at all.

Blacks should learn an important lesson from this. Get concealed carry permits themselves and shoot first when threatened by profiling vigilantes in states like Florida. Don't just have a semi-automatic pistol. Keep it charged at all times so all you have to do is squeeze the trigger to kill.

Florida’s Disastrous Self-Defense Law

THE very public controversy surrounding the killing on Feb. 26 of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, by a crime watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, was predictable.

In fact, I, along with other Florida chiefs of police, said so in a letter to the Legislature in 2005 when we opposed the passage of a law that not only enshrined the doctrine of “your home is your castle” but took this doctrine into the public square and added a new concept called “stand your ground.”

Use-of-force issues arose often during my 41-year policing career. In fact, officer-involved shootings were the No. 1 problem when I became Miami’s police chief in January 2003. But after we put in place new policies and training, officers went 20 months without discharging a single bullet at a person, while arrests increased over 30 percent.

Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster.

At the time the Florida law was working its way through the Legislature, proponents argued that a homeowner should have the absolute right to defend himself and his home against an intruder and should not have to worry about the legal consequences if he killed someone. Proponents also maintained that there should be no judicial review of such a shooting.

But I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges, so why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force? I also asked the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Dennis K. Baxley, to point to any case in Florida where a homeowner had been indicted or arrested as a result of “defending his castle.” He could not come up with a single one.

The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law. Clearly, this was the case here.

The second part of the law — “stand your ground” — is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

During one debate, one of the law’s proponents suggested that if a citizen felt threatened in a public space, he should not have to retreat and should be able to meet force with force. I pointed out that citizens feel threatened all the time, whether it’s from the approach of an aggressive panhandler or squeegee pest or even just walking down a poorly lighted street at night. In tightly congested urban areas, public encounters can be threatening; a look, a physical bump, a leer, someone you think may be following you. This is part of urban life. You learn to navigate threatening settings without resorting to force. Retreating is always the best option.

As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.

Back in 2005, the National Rifle Association identified about two dozen states as fertile ground for the passage of laws just like this one. Florida was the first state to pass such a law. Today, at least 20 other states have followed suit.

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida can make all Floridians proud by being the first governor to reject and repeal such misguided laws.

John F. Timoney is a former Miami police chief, Philadelphia police commissioner and deputy police commissioner in New York. He is now senior police adviser to the Bahrain Minister of the Interior.
Click to expand...
"Stand your ground" didn't apply to George Zimmerman because he was the one who was tracking down his victim. And of course, that wouldn't have helped Trayvon Martin. He still had 11 and a half months to go before he could have properly protected himself from his killer that night since children cannot get concealed carry permits. But if more blacks arm themselves it will make the wannabe cops think twice before chasing after innocent people, especially on rainy nights.
 
albie_123 said:
That's funny. I could swear the jury decided otherwise.
Click to expand...
It's no big surprise that many people probably now think George Zimmerman was found not guilty due to a law which clearly didn't pertain to him.
 
Justice prevailed once again. In this country, a person is supposed to be presumed to be innocent until shown beyond reasonable doubt that they guilty of a crime. This naturally incenses television pundits like Nancy Grace who frequently rush to judgement without knowing the facts, as she also did in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Click to expand...

Sound familiar?

Spoiler :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10661006&postcount=117
 
Just because George Zimmerman was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. It just primarily means that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him.
 
GoodEnoughForMe said:
Warning shots gets you 20 years, murder gets you none. We all know what the difference with the accused was.
Click to expand...
That there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect fired warning shots, while there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this suspect did anything but justified homicide?
Formaldehyde said:
Just because George Zimmerman was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. It just means that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him.
Click to expand...
If you're honestly telling me we should hold people responsible for crimes they 'may' have committed, even with a lack of evidence and AFTER ACQUITTAL, then not only are you entirely trashing every legal system in place in the world, you're also opening up a whole 'nother can of worms regarding the victim of this specific case.
 
albie_123 said:
If you're honestly telling me we should hold people responsible for crimes they 'may' have committed, even with a lack of evidence and AFTER ACQUITTAL, then not only are you entirely trashing every legal system in place in the world, you're also opening up a whole 'nother can of worms regarding the victim of this specific case.
Click to expand...
No, I'm "honestly telling" you that you apparently don't understand the "stand your ground" law at all if you think it pertained to George Zimmerman. But it clearly should have protected Trayvon Martin if he had the gun and a concealed carry permit.
 
There is not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman tracked or chased Trayvon. There is equal evidence to suggest the opposite.

Regardless, stand your ground wasn't even part of this case. Please stop talking about a case you obviously haven't spent time researching.
 
Zimmerman neglected his own safety though. It was only when backed into a corner, he should not have been in, that it was allegedly even needed.

How can one justify one state, without justification to even be in that state? Last time I knew being taunted by some one is not a basis for self preservation. Even if that taunting drives one crazy, one can always walk away.

Now if Z had been "just passing through" the area and was jumped by M, then self defense would be the justified state to be in.

Z had no justification, since he was told by an authority not to pursue M. Perhaps Z did not get that point. If he was totally clueless, he would not even have called the police. Could that have been his own excuse to give himself permission to take matters into his own hands?

Perhaps his acquittal should be on the grounds of "playing dumb"?
 
albie_123 said:
There is not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman tracked or chased Trayvon. There is equal evidence to suggest the opposite.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was not sufficient evidence to reach beyond a reasonable doubt on whether either one of them stalking or chasing the other.
 
That's my point. Not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a doubt Z was chasing, and an equal level - that is, not enough to prove beyond a doubt - that Trayvon was. :)

There isn't even enough evidence to prove a 'chase' occurred at all.
 
I am just mildly happy that at least Z won't die in a jail tonight. I am sure his life is over though in many ways.

I hope there won't be any massive riots. This case should never had gotten such an explosive publicity :/
 
I doubt there will be any riots. The media on all sides has been playing up this case to be something it never was, and has been making both sides look terrible. Instead of the truth - people concerned about the glaring inequalities in American society on one hand and people wanting a fair and legal trial on the other - we got a story of racists vs. rioting thugs.

There is reason on both sides. This isn't even a case of a vocal idiotic minority - there is no such minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JollyRoger
  • Locked
Victim of perceived thug may end up in jail
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
84K
Atticus
Atticus
JollyRoger
Yet another victim of a perceived thug ends up in jail
2 3
Replies
55
Views
6K
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
JollyRoger
  • Locked
Victim of perceived thug does end up in jail
67 68 69
Replies
1K
Views
104K
Atticus
Atticus
Formaldehyde
Child Abuse "On The Verge Of Torture" In The Name Of Christ
9 10 11
Replies
214
Views
18K
Chimera Kitty
C
Back
Top Bottom