Justice for Trayvon?

[felix dakat]

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[17]


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—


(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.

Despite the public out-cry, it is going to be difficult to prosecute Zimmerman or anybody else under Florida's "stand your ground" law or similar laws in other states. The law specifies a right without explicitly stipulating limitations on that right.

[Moreno]

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[17]


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—


(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.

Despite the public out-cry, it is going to be difficult to prosecute Zimmerman or anybody else under Florida's "stand your ground" law or similar laws in other states. The law specifies a right without explicitly stipulating limitations on that right.

Watch the way it will never be effectively used by someone defending violence defending oneself from a police officer.

[Mowk]

If Zimmerman was on private property, not his own, and not "in his home", then he has to prove he was attacked and was actually "in" no duty to retreat.

[Moreno]

Easy, if Zimmerman was on public property and not "in his home".

You missed (3)

[Mowk]

Yes and no, I just missed it before you caught it.

to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

As I am unaware of whether Trayvon had completed the commission of a forcible felony or had acted forcibly towards completion of a felony, but rather he was just feared as having an intention, I'd say (3) stands on its own. You would have to prove Trayvon acted forcefully toward the completion of a felony rather then just being feared of having the intention. As Zimmerman was unharmed, how can that be interpreted?

[felix dakat]

The facts are still very much in play at this stage. George Zimmerman told police he shot Trayvon Martin inside a gated community on February 26 in self-defense after Martin attacked him and repeatedly bashed his head into a concrete walkway. But Zimmerman appeared uninjured when he was brought into the police station on the night of the shooting, according to a video released yesterday.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 2459.story

[brevel_monkey]

It will be hard to prosecute him on any grounds at all. Apparently one of the few details that hasn't been leaked is whether Zimmerman was looked at by the medical team before being arrested. Detailed forensic reports are also pending.

Whether Zimmerman was or was not attacked first is currently difficult to tell (the video tells us nothing). If Zimmerman did follow and then shoot down Martin practically in cold blood, then this will probably out in time.

More likely, though, (if Zimmerman's story is not true): Zimmerman tried to attack/pin down Martin, Martin resisted and in the resulting flurry Zimmerman shot Martin. If this was the case, although it would still be criminal (as in this case Zimmerman was the initial aggressor), it would be almost impossible to prove against Zimmerman's own story. He'd likely be released, leaving a very angry public.

Still, the public's anger is only half directed at Zimmerman. The real question for many people, including me, is whether this case was investigated properly, or whether police unfairly jumped to believing Zimmerman's story and thus failed to gather the correct evidence and undergo the correct procedures (such as having Zimmerman drugs and alcohol tested, and having an independent medical professional check the extent of his injuries).

[Moreno]

It will be hard to prosecute him on any grounds at all. Apparently one of the few details that hasn't been leaked is whether Zimmerman was looked at by the medical team before being arrested. Detailed forensic reports are also pending.

Whether Zimmerman was or was not attacked first is currently difficult to tell (the video tells us nothing). If Zimmerman did follow and then shoot down Martin practically in cold blood, then this will probably out in time.

Why?

More likely, though, (if Zimmerman's story is not true): Zimmerman tried to attack/pin down Martin, Martin resisted and in the resulting flurry Zimmerman shot Martin. If this was the case, although it would still be criminal (as in this case Zimmerman was the initial aggressor), it would be almost impossible to prove against Zimmerman's own story. He'd likely be released, leaving a very angry public.

Ah, ok, you mean if it was a pure assassination it will come out. Perhaps. and I agree with this part, all sorts of greyer areas that are still crimes will likely be very hard to prove.

[felix dakat]

The slogan on the local Black radio station is "We don't want an eye for an eye; we just want justice for Trayvon. The DJ was was saying there is a time for anger and he is angry now. Howard University has produced a video about this which I liked below. I'm going to change the title of this thread to "Justice for Trayvon?

http://globalgrind.com/news/Howard-Univ ... aign-Video

[SIATD v2]

America - the only country in the world where a house is considered more valuable than a human life...

[Peter Kropotkin]

SIATD v2:America - the only country in the world where a house is considered more valuable than a human life..."

K: And a car is more valuable and a gun is more valuable and.... come to think about it, any type of
private property is considered more valuable then human life. Very sad commentary on america.

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

Warning: You are about to read something that isn't politically correct.

This whole Trayvon thing has elicited a discussion about racial profiling (or, if not a discussion, at least loads of commentary about it) as shown in Felix's link above.

So, obviously the politically correct thing is to say that racial profiling is completely bad and needs to be stopped. But, fuck being politically correct. This is a philosophy forum. Maybe it's not completely bad, and if we're going to make commentary on it in a philosophy forum, you kinda owe us, in the name of philosophy, the willingness to look at arguments that support racial profiling.

Here's one such argument.

I'm not commenting on Trayvon/Zimmerman specifically, because we all know that it's not exactly clear what happened. I'm just commenting on the video that asks "Do I look suspicious?" which is clearly trying to make a statement about profiling.

[felix dakat]

Warning: You are about to read something that isn't politically correct.

This whole Trayvon thing has elicited a discussion about racial profiling (or, if not a discussion, at least loads of commentary about it) as shown in Felix's link above.

So, obviously the politically correct thing is to say that racial profiling is completely bad and needs to be stopped. But, fuck being politically correct. This is a philosophy forum. Maybe it's not completely bad, and if we're going to make commentary on it in a philosophy forum, you kinda owe us, in the name of philosophy, the willingness to look at arguments that support racial profiling.

Here's one such argument.

I'm not commenting on Trayvon/Zimmerman specifically, because we all know that it's not exactly clear what happened. I'm just commenting on the video that asks "Do I look suspicious?" which is clearly trying to make a statement about profiling.

The article you cited is about racial profiling by the police. The shooter who killed Trayvon was not a cop so please explain how the article is relevant. Are you suggesting that armed citizens use racial profiling are you?

[Flannel Jesus]

The whole nation is trying to make a statement about racial profiling by armed citizens who walk around with guns following suspicious people, and not by police? That's what you're saying? If that's the point, it's really, really petty. Idk how it got the whole nation's interest if it's just talking about that group of people, because quite frankly, they aren't that common.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is about more than an incredibly small group of people -- so small that you could probably go a year without even seeing one, and probably your whole life without interacting with one -- who sometimes racially profile. I assumed it was about something larger. If that assumption is wrong, by all means correct me.

[brevel_monkey]

The article you cited is about racial profiling by the police. The shooter who killed Trayvon was not a cop so please explain how the article is relevant. Are you suggesting that armed citizens use racial profiling are you?

The article's relevance seems pretty straightforward to me. If its justifiable for police to use racial profiling, then its probably justifiable for people to use it when considering who might constitute a threat to their neighborhood.

...

There are certainly facts which are often glossed over: in most places in America, a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by black people, to the point where it can be said that statistically speaking police are far more likely to catch a criminal by pulling over black people than they are white people. As the article points out, it is also probably inevitable in the present climate that a higher percentage of black people are stopped and searched, because black communities in many cities in America have high crime rates.

However, I still don't agree with racial profiling and I do not consider it 'good policing', because at its heart it is still racist and therefore, in my mind, immoral. The problem is this - when police pull over an innocent person who happens to be black, that person probably has no more relation to the black people who committed crimes than a white innocent person does.

More importantly,if you walk around with the assumption that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people, it also encourages more general racist attitudes. Where the police are concerned, racial profiling destroys trust within communities, makes communities feel isolated and alienated from law enforcement, and also provides a negative roll model for society in general. America obviously has a problem with racist police (we do in Britain, but its not as bad) - I think the perception that law enforcement is racist can create far more damage than racial profiling can make up for. People are far more likely to give up an a society which they feel is geared against them.

[uglypeoplefucking]

The issue for me is the retarded laws which not only allow but encourage would-be vigilantes with guns to stalk the streets pretending to fight crime. Yes, the fact that Trayvon was black played a role in his suspicious appearance, but that's secondary. He isn't dead because he's black, he's dead because Rambo or whatever-his-name-is was allowed to carry a firearm. These laws are the gun lobby at work.

[Calrid]

There's no way you can ban guns because people need guns to protect themselves from people with guns, cops mostly.

There are so many black criminals because there is so much wealth inequality between the races basically. Hence the prisons are full of black people. You should probably watch American History X.

Which are the murder capitals of the world? It's no accident places like Capetown, DC, New Orleans etc have high per capita gun crime.

[felix dakat]

The whole nation is trying to make a statement about racial profiling by armed citizens who walk around with guns following suspicious people, and not by police? That's what you're saying? If that's the point, it's really, really petty. Idk how it got the whole nation's interest if it's just talking about that group of people, because quite frankly, they aren't that common.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is about more than an incredibly small group of people -- so small that you could probably go a year without even seeing one, and probably your whole life without interacting with one -- who sometimes racially profile. I assumed it was about something larger. If that assumption is wrong, by all means correct me.

It's about the fact that the guy shot a 17 year old for reasons known only to him, that he may have presumed that Trayvon intended to commit a crime because he was young and black and wore a hoodie [racial profiling?], Trayvon was unarmed, the fact that police did not arrest the shooter, the Florida stand your ground law may make it legal for someone to do what this shooter did, the facts don't add up in support of the shooter's story. Does profiling = prejudice? I think so. Are most people prejudiced? I think so. And many of them are walking around carrying guns in Florida which is where this happened and , incidentally, where I live.

[Flannel Jesus]

Of course profiling = prejudice, that's the point! Pre-judging is exactly what the article I linked says is useful.

[felix dakat]

Of course profiling = prejudice, that's the point! Pre-judging is exactly what the article I linked says is useful.

Apparently it wasn't useful in this case. Maybe the author of the article will re-think his bullshit now. But, of course, the author was talking about cops not a neighborhood watch vigilante.

[Moreno]

Of course profiling = prejudice, that's the point! Pre-judging is exactly what the article I linked says is useful.

Apparently it wasn't useful in this case. Maybe the author will re-think his bullshit. But of course the author was talking about cops not a neighborhood watch vigilanti.

Further, I believe when he called it in to the police, preconfrontation, they told him to stay away from the guy. This would have then led to a clear situation where a police car pulls up and a police officer demands ID or whatever, rather than some guy coming up doing whatever this guy did.

[felix dakat]

Of course profiling = prejudice, that's the point! Pre-judging is exactly what the article I linked says is useful.

Apparently it wasn't useful in this case. Maybe the author will re-think his bullshit. But of course the author was talking about cops not a neighborhood watch vigilanti.

Further, I believe when he called it in to the police, preconfrontation, they told him to stay away from the guy. This would have then led to a clear situation where a police car pulls up and a police officer demands ID or whatever, rather than some guy coming up doing whatever this guy did.

Right. It's bad enough when the cops profile. Worse when some yahoo makes a"profile" the basis for shooting an unarmed man. The cops told Zimmerman not to follow the kid. He disobeyed them according to the message on Trayvon's girl-friend's cell phone, and followed him anyway. Trayvon fit Zimmerman's prejudicial stereotype. As he told the cop "These ass-holes, they always get away." He made damn sure Trayvon did not get away. Trayvon was an asshole to him. Time to die.

[Moreno]

Despite the public out-cry, it is going to be difficult to prosecute Zimmerman or anybody else under Florida's "stand your ground" law or similar laws in other states. The law specifies a right without explicitly stipulating limitations on that right.

Essentially, I do agree with the stand your ground law. I mean, if someone attacks me and it seems like they might be trying to kill me, I think I should be able to punch them in the trachea and maybe kill them. It does matter to me what actually happened in this case, the specifics. But given that an unarmed man was killed, Zimmerman should have been treated as a suspect in a homocide and this would include a mandatory doctor's examination that would be for legal purposes and not just for his health. The scene of the shooting should be very carefully protected and examined, and Zimmerman should be grilled hard. the investigation of Zimmerman should take into account that he went against police suggestions - so he clearly did not feel threatened then - and put himself in a confrontation position. A fine tooth comb cross checking between the time of his calls, what he said to the police, where the death took place, the wounds on both of them, distance and angle of shot
and
Zimmerman's story.

An amateur with a gun heading into a potential conflict is to me suspect, unless he or she is in his own house. It can be OK, I suppose, but there suddenly, in my mind, is some onus of proving one's lack of negligence in such a situation.

Some pedestrian with a concealed weapon permit who happens to end up in a confrontation on a street corner is a different situation. But if you are heading towards what is trouble and you have a gun and you are not a police officer or a guard, say, in a bank, you are taking risks for everyone, even bystanders who you may shoot. And this is assuming you are correct that the person you are following is guilty. Even then you are putting others at risk, including yourself. You do not have the authority, it is not clear who you are to the perp, who may feel threatened and not associate it with a burglary or shoplifting act he has committed. You do not have the kind of soon to be overwhelming force that the appearance of a police car, likely with two officers and with a department who knows where they are, ready to send more officers if necessary. You do not have the training, which includes how not to escalate violence, how to reduce risks to bystanders, risk assessment (when to call for back up before confrontation for example) and so on.

In some situations we will not be able to figure out what really happened and if a crime was committed. This may be one. But his behavior is at the very least very questionable.

[felix dakat]

Despite the public out-cry, it is going to be difficult to prosecute Zimmerman or anybody else under Florida's "stand your ground" law or similar laws in other states. The law specifies a right without explicitly stipulating limitations on that right.

Essentially, I do agree with the stand your ground law. I mean, if someone attacks me and it seems like they might be trying to kill me, I think I should be able to punch them in the trachea and maybe kill them. It does matter to me what actually happened in this case, the specifics. But given that an unarmed man was killed, Zimmerman should have been treated as a suspect in a homocide and this would include a mandatory doctor's examination that would be for legal purposes and not just for his health. The scene of the shooting should be very carefully protected and examined, and Zimmerman should be grilled hard. the investigation of Zimmerman should take into account that he went against police suggestions - so he clearly did not feel threatened then - and put himself in a confrontation position. A fine tooth comb cross checking between the time of his calls, what he said to the police, where the death took place, the wounds on both of them, distance and angle of shot
and
Zimmerman's story.

An amateur with a gun heading into a potential conflict is to me suspect, unless he or she is in his own house. It can be OK, I suppose, but there suddenly, in my mind, is some onus of proving one's lack of negligence in such a situation.

Some pedestrian with a concealed weapon permit who happens to end up in a confrontation on a street corner is a different situation. But if you are heading towards what is trouble and you have a gun and you are not a police officer or a guard, say, in a bank, you are taking risks for everyone, even bystanders who you may shoot. And this is assuming you are correct that the person you are following is guilty. Even then you are putting others at risk, including yourself. You do not have the authority, it is not clear who you are to the perp, who may feel threatened and not associate it with a burglary or shoplifting act he has committed. You do not have the kind of soon to be overwhelming force that the appearance of a police car, likely with two officers and with a department who knows where they are, ready to send more officers if necessary. You do not have the training, which includes how not to escalate violence, how to reduce risks to bystanders, risk assessment (when to call for back up before confrontation for example) and so on.

In some situations we will not be able to figure out what really happened and if a crime was committed. This may be one. But his behavior is at the very least very questionable.

The stand- your- ground law seems to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later. According to Wikipedia, in Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed. Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, thus far released and unverified evidence indicates that he first pursued. Did police let him go without charging him because they knew that under this law they couldn't get a conviction?

[Moreno]

The stand- your- ground law seems to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later. According to Wikipedia, in Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed. Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, thus far released and unverified evidence indicates that he first pursued. Did police let him go without charging him because they knew that under this law they couldn't get a conviction?

They wouldn't have let him go if it turned out the guy was a cop, off duty.