Tough on crime... except.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Most conservatives favor laws that are tough on crime: Three strikes and you're out! Except their tune suddenly changes when talking about people who kill or injure others then claim self-defense. Then, the attacker gets the benefit of the doubt!

• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57398005-504083/the-trayvon-martin-case-exposes-the-realities-of-a-new-generation-of-self-defense-laws/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/trayvon-martin-sanford-florida_n_1345868.html

The above case is so outrageous it's hard to believe it's even real. As of today, Zimmerman has still not been arrested for shooting a child after being told by the police to let them deal with his "suspicions" about the young man. 

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Do you know how often I feel threatened when following some one? I'm like, "Crap I'm nervous. I'm tailing a complete stranger. This is nuts! Something could happen to me!" And do you know how sick I am of having to not follow people to feel ok again? What about my rights?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

But here's the most delicious irony about White Men With Guns: Trayvon Martin had every right to attack a man following him at night, confronting him and generally threatening him in a menacing way, under the new law. The most blatantly racist thing about it is, (and the reason the law is so utterly stupid) is that the person who ends up dead is assumed to be guilty for infringing on someone else, when it is the other way around.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

How did the police NOT charge this guy when he was **TOLD** by the police to not follow the kid??

[spiffynamehere.livejournal.com]

This is a beautiful comment.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Look, 911 told him to disengage, what other choice did he have but to disregard police instruction?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

It seems that Martin was more in need of defending himself, and if he had a gun and did defend himself, and if he killed Zimmerman, I doubt the 'stand your ground' law would hold up as well for him.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

People who pull guns are a threat to everyone within range.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

"Stand your ground" laws come with a conditional application clause which leans more heavily in favor of Klan members than to other minorities.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I can't read the CBS link because they apparently are too small of a news outfit to code for obscure systems like the IPhone.

The thing comes down to men's tea and proof. You could possibly get Zimmerman for manslaughter (not sure of specifics in FL law) but maybe not murder since intent is hard to prove when you don't have much evidence indicating he intended to kill anyone.

The case seems to rely heavily on agitation to imply murder. The second link talked almost exclusively of the implications rather than the facts of the case.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The facts are quite simple:
1)called 911, told to back off
2)didn't back off
3)confronted the kid
4)shot the kid

Draw your own conclusions.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Also, I don't see where you see a tune change.

The case isn't clear cut. Clear cut cases of murder where people demand leniency are going to be ridiculed by those claiming leniency.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What isn't clear cut about randomly accosting people, starting shit, and then using that as an excuse for self-defense? The guy was in a car, btw. There are more than enough elements of cognizance to land 2nd degree murder charges in my state.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I take exception to some quotes from the articles.

"These 'stand your ground' laws license pistol-packing urban cowboys and paranoid people," says O'Meara, who fought the passage of a similar law in Wisconsin. "We've all been trained to be afraid of black men, and if you're afraid enough that justifies everything."

Yeah, I carry a handgun, but I am not some paranoid person nor do I consider myself an urban cowboy. Stand your ground laws (or castle doctrine laws) are put into place for when you are accosted and threatened with physical harm or death, so that you can act to preserve your health or life without fear of recourse.

"The situation was less clear cut when pharmacist Jerome Ersland shot one of the young men who tried to rob the Oklahoma City drugstore where he worked in 2009. Ersland shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker in the head, chased his accomplice out, then returned and shot Parker five more times as the teen lay on the floor."

That situation was not less clear cut, it was perfectly clear. Ersland murdered Parker, as I recall the first shot did not kill Parker, but it ended the threat, the other five shots were cold and calculated in my book.

"The law has made things confusing for law enforcement," says Zachary Weaver.
I do not see it that way. What we have is not a overly convoluted or confusing law, but law enforcement officers who are not properly versed in the law. As it stands the only way I can see it as being remotely confusing is under the following conditions, using West Virginia as an example:

1. West Virginia has castle doctrine, allowing for the use of deadly force to protect yourself while you are present in your personal property.
2. A recently passed law allows for someone injured on your personal property to sue and or press criminal charges against the property owner.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Castle doctrine and stand your ground are two different things though. We have castle doctrine in Minnesota. The governor just vetoed the stand your ground law, however. The problem is that the law guarantees and pretty much forces people to shoot, because the only way out at that point is to make sure the other guy can't say anything. The laws are so terribly written that it pushes the balance of discretion the wrong way: the calculus is simple. Shoot the other guy and the natural assumption is that he threatened you.... and dead men tell no tales.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

"In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense," Lee said. "Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him."

Are we now supposed to arrest people without probable cause? Because that's what you appear to be asking for. There may be some ambiguity in the Florida law that needs to be addressed here, even if such laws are really a necessity to protect people and their property from wrongdoing, but I'm not sure where your complaint is, and I hope you'll explain.

Also, calling Trayvon Martin a child implies something that you don't want to be implying. He wasn't some 10 year old kid walking down the street, but a 17 year old.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's Florida. Sense goes out the window when dealing with this state.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

As a Floridian, IAWTC. I just pretend I live in a different state and all is well.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The State Attorney's office has the case now, and will make the decision whether to charge Zimmerman. There's way too much bad blood and history with regards to how that police department handles these kinds of cases to let them just say: "We believe Zimmerman, case closed." It's pathetic (and should be damn embarrassing) nthat the State Attorney has to come in and basically say: "We can't trust you to investigate this fairly", but letting them take over is probably the smartest thing they could have done, because otherwise any decision they make would be viewed through the lens of every previous percieved injustice.

I've got my own personal bias here (my daughter and ex-fiancee, who happen to be black, live freaking FIVE MILES AWAY from where this happened, so I'd like to see these attitudes get properly addressed) but I hope this means we'll see a prosecution. Personally, I think Zimmerman deserves to fry. There's no way in hell he legitimately went from being safely in a car calling 911 to a situation where he needed to defend himself with lethal force. Whatever happens, I hope they prosecute his ass to the fullest possible extent. But then, that's why they rightly shouldn't ever let me on a jury related to this case. ;)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

These things you say, I agree with them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately for Right-Wing desires to protect human rights, this man brutally murdered in a fashion aided and abetted by the police was in fact a man he and not a fetus. As he was in fact a teenager he does not qualify as human, and as he's a black teenager there are probably some mitigating circumstances because the article made a typo. See, if he'd been a fetus this would be worth outrage. As he's not, it's "Meh".

This message brought to you by the Committee for the Salvation of the Greater Unborn Horde, courtesy Chairman, Great Helmsman, Supreme High Commander and Pooh-Bah of the Giggity Underlankers. You may now return to your discussion of an example of all that is wrong with racism and incompetent police in the USA today.

[spiffynamehere.livejournal.com]

There's a petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-17-year-old-trayvon-martin?utm_campaign=rjisaZqTpX&utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert) here for bringing charges against Zimmerman.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Thanks and signed.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the cited case, but I think your generalization in the beginning of the post is outrageously wrong. People (not just conservatives) who are tough on crime are generally happy for the person to be convicted of the crime first. The suspect is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt until the trial.

Even if a killing was done in self-defense, there should still be a trial (assuming there's enough evidence to try to prove the suspect killed the victim). It shouldn't be different than any other manslaughter or worse case, except the suspect has a legitimate defense.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This is more of a case of police corruption than anything.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well, from the looks of this. Obviously there needs to be a revision on this self defense law. You can't just shoot someone because you don't like the way they look.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Yes, the article is written to give that impression.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

In the Zimmerman case, the police should be looking for cameras, places/ways Zimmerman could have harmed himself to set up an alibi, signs that Martin did attack him like bloody knuckles etc.

If you can't prove your life was threatened in the ensuing investigation after you shoot someone in self defense, you're going to be on trial for murder regardless of the state.

You get more leeway in your home, because it MUST be assumed that an intruder cannot have good intentions if s/he has entered your home illegally. But if you just lure someone in and shoot them or pop someone you know because you think you can, that's going to come out in the investigation. Along with everything else.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This is hideous. And the barbed wire of law points one direction.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

update: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/031612-911-calls-released-in-Sanford-shooting

so um, uh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[paft.livejournal.com]

If there had been no gun involved, this would likely not have escalated into a tragedy.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It allowed someone to turn a poor decision into a killing. This is what tools for killing enable.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"A self-appointed neighborhood watchman who pursued and then shot dead an unarmed 17-year-old boy outside his stepmother's home last month in Sanford, Fla., reportedly wanted to be a police officer and had called 9-1-1 50 times in the last year." - link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watchman-allegedly-shot-trayvon-martin-wanted-cop/story?id=15949879#.T2ZsihEgd8E).

So, this guy was a vigilante freak who basically shot a kid for being black and walking in his own neighborhood.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its interesting to watch the conservatives kneejerk jump to the side of a violent lunatic. The guy could be a communist for all they know, so I doubt it's about protecting "one of them", unless its on of "them white people like us worried about them scary black people". There's not really anything else in the case is there?