In my personal and very humble opinion, this child got shot for no crime other than being black. I really thought this kind of hatred was in our past....maybe I hoped more than thought.
If I can find the link, I'll post it here. It has ALL the 9-1-1 calls made about this, and in the most disturbing one, it's a family in their house watching Martin and Zimmerman wrestling on the ground, calling 9-1-1, and you can clearly hear the scuffling from inside the house, you hear Martin calling for help repeatedly, and then the gunshot.
In ANOTHER call, you hear a woman who witnissed the whole thing basically say to the operator (not a direct quote, but along the lines of) 'He wasn't doing anything... why would he just shoot him?'
I think that this was an unprovoked attack on an unarmed youth, whether it was racially biased or not, I feel like this would have happened whether it was Trayvon, a white, or any other race. The issue here is using violence to solve issues you know nothing about. So someone wants to be on neighbourhood watch? Great, I commend them. But there is NO need to patrol your neighbourhood with a gun, like an armed vigilante.
I think that if nothing else, this guy should be put away for murder. If you see something, call the cops. If you can help, great. But there was no need for this guy to approach a teen who was walking, minding his own business. In one of the 9-1-1 calls, Zimmerman says to the dispatcher, that there had been breakins in the neighbourhood, and here was this person walking through in the rain, looking around at the houses.
So he had a reason to be suspicious. But NO reason to approach him and kill him. I think the issue here, is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, and how having a law such as that, can distort peoples' different perceptions of said law.
this has nothing to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law....even the writer of that law said it would not apply to this since it wasnt in Zimmermans yard or on his property...nor did Martin make in threatening gestures.
That's what's known as a 'lie'. It is entirely ignoring the law in question. Or rather, claiming the law only did one thing when it did three.
It further loosened the restrictions on using deadly force at home. It scrapped the duty to retreat in public places. And it gave people who use self-defense civil and criminal immunity.
The dangerous part isn't the home defence aspect but the combined effect of the other two. It means that deadly force can be used even if retreat may have been possible (ie, shooting is a first resort for self defence rather than last resort) and that prosecutors usually can't even take people to trial for homicides where self defence would usually be a defence.
In principle, the law is supposed to offer those who claim self defence a hearing where that claim is examined. This has happened a few times and seems to be quite a high barrier. Take this case, where there was an outright gang gunfight in which one individual was killed. Members of the rival gang involved in his killing were granted immunity to prosecution (criminal and civil) because they successfully claimed self defence. In that case the prosecution was brought by an anti-gang task force who deliberately ignored the self defence claims. Most police forces within Florida are not willing or able to do that and have to pick their prosecutions. That means simply not bringing cases where self defence is claimed.
If you want to see the barrier to prosecution brought by this law, here is a judgement in an appeal. The relevant part;
The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.
From another opinion;
"does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."
And note that this is only if a case goes to trial and self defence is used as a defence at that stage. Few cases are making it that far these days.
Also, there seem to be two completely different, and politically motivated stories going around. The link pal_sch posted has the version from the left, basically that Zimmerman is a bigot and shot Trayvon as soon as he had the tiniest reason. There are several accounts that back this up. The version on the right is that Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten by Trayvon, and both witnesses and evidence support this one as well. I'm to the point I honestly can't tell which is right. Kind of sad that politics have to be involved with everything these days.
The dangerous part isn't the home defence aspect but the combined effect of the other two. It means that deadly force can be used even if retreat may have been possible (ie, shooting is a first resort for self defence rather than last resort) and that prosecutors usually can't even take people to trial for homicides where self defence would usually be a defence.
In principle, the law is supposed to offer those who claim self defence a hearing where that claim is examined. This has happened a few times and seems to be quite a high barrier.
That's not quite right...but it's pretty close.
At common law, self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden lies on the defendant to prove it, usually by a preponderance of the evidence. (more likely than not)
That is...you're innocent until proven guilty, but all the prosecutor has to prove is that you shot someone. Once they prove that, it's your job to introduce evidence that you acted in self defense, and the judge will tell the jury that "if they find that "more likely than not" you acted in self defense, they should acquit.
On the other hand, laws in some states, and in particular the Florida Stand your Ground law, specifically say that all a defendant needs to do is assert self defense, then the prosecutors must prove that self defense does not apply beyond a reasonable doubt.
So the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that you shot someone, but that you did not act in self defense.
Given that murders commonly have no direct witnesses, and forensic science is rarely as advanced as people think from watching CSI, you often end up in situations where "guy A says self defense, guy B is dead." That leaves prosecutors in a bind, they simply have no evidence to rebut the claim of self defense, all they can do is make a circumstantial case that it probably wasn't there (no gun, no motive etc), but that rarely gets you past beyond a reasonable doubt. So they don't even end up filing charges.
Hey look at the black friends I have, that must mean I'm not racist!
Zimmerman had shown in the past that he was looking for a confrontation. Just because he's friends with some black people doesn't mean he isn't still racist. He found a young black man suspicious because he was in their neighborhood and wearing a hoodie. Maybe he would find a young white man in a hoodie just as suspicious, but I doubt it and it's pretty telling. Really, the right-wing version of the story is still not a good defense. If anything, it just shows that Trayvon Martin was acting out in self-defense against a guy who had been following him and then accosted him. If I were in Martin's shoes and an armed man was stalking me, I think I reserve the right to punch him in his face when he finally comes after me.
I think this story has really brought to light a lot of the underlying racism still prevelant in our society. I know some people who I wouldn't consider racist (they have black friends!) but I've heard these same people say some pretty racist things on the topic. Like "well he didn't belong in that neighborhood" or "there were a lot of burglaries before and he may have been involved with the gang that did them" or any number of things. Those comments online we all saw are even worse.
Best summary of the law that I've seen. Thanks for that. I'm on the fence on this law, leaning toward supporting it because I think that when you enter a courtroom, you should have to be proven guilty...not have to prove innocence.
To be honest, I think Zimmerman was probably guilty and I fall soundly on the right side of the political arena. I think, based off of what I've seen, he engaged Trayvon against the orders of the dispatch, he didn't identify himself, tried to restrain Travyon but the kid fought him and got the upper hand, until Zimmerman shot him. The eyewitness account could still be corroborated with that. I don't believe that Zimmerman was leaving the scene, BUT he is innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that we, the people have not seen in the 4 or so articles we've all read and the regurgitated information that the talking heads tell us. Zimmerman deserves due process; and if the police report that is going before the Grand Jury shows that it was followed, and if the evidence is sound acquitting him, then all of this ire that has been stirred up on him is causeless.
Why was he carrying a gun? Is the question that keeps popping up in my head about this whole thing. He was a just on watch. That and a watch person is supposed to just report incidents and leave correct? Let the police handle the situation?
It's sad because it is impossible to know the full details of this story now.
Not really impossible, just difficult to piece together. From what I understand, there are eye witness statement and the telephone calls, both from Zimmerman and others to the police as well as from Martin before he was accosted.
Zimmerman stalked, engaged, and shot to death a 17 year old boy. Whether he's racist or not should be a secondary concern to what what appears to be murder.
Zimmerman stalked, engaged, and shot to death a 17 year old boy. Whether he's racist or not should be a secondary concern to what what appears to be murder.
While I think your sentiment is correct, I think it misses the factual dispute that's going on.
Different groups of people are advancing several entirely different factual narratives.
Scenario A: Zimmerman sees Martin and begins to follow him while calling 911, Martin Flees, Zimmerman loses martin but then is subsequently and then is attacked by Martin, he shoots martin in self defense. This is what ZImmerman said happened to the police.
Scenario B: Zimmerman follows Martin, while calling 911, accosts Martin without any actual provocation. (Presumably a "you're going to stand right there until the police get here). There is some sort of physical altercation and Martin is shot.
Scenario C: Zimmerman follows martin, while calling 911, accosts Martin, and somehow believing him to be a threat, shoots him without any physical altercation occuring beforehand.
Most of the evidence indicates some sort of physical altercation occured. Regardless of whether you think he's telling the truth or whether it was even appropriate, Zimmerman did apparently tells the cops at some point that he acted in self defense, and the police report documents he had some sort of physical injuries. On the other hand, witnesses suggest the police report doesn't accurately reflect what occurred subsequent to the police's arrival and that police taking statements informed witnesses of Zimmerman's story.
The girlfriend's story suggests B or C is closer to reality as well.
In the specific case of whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, sure. But the story is bringing to light a more widespread issue, and that's the racism still so ingrained in our society. From that respect, as a general point of discussion, it's totally relevant and very important. To look at why he found Martin suspicious and how Zimmerman's beliefs may coincide with our own. We may not think of ourselves as racist, but if you really think about it, I'm sure we all tend to be. Beyond the whole story, that's what we're learning.
I personally lean towards the B narrative; it seems to make sense barring all the evidence that I've seen online. My point, and one that was perilously contentious with my co-workers, is that Zimmerman should be allowed due process in this. Right now everyone is ready to crucify the guy, but the facts haven't been settled.
While the actual events are indeed horrible, I find that the cavalier investigation is much more damning. Now I don't know everything about what happened, I'm just viewing it here as a civilian; but it seems to me that the investigation did not go deep enough and wasn't transparent enough in this obvious firestorm.
As a lawyer, I'm pretty cavalier about the personal costs of legal process. It's what I do for a living. I've been in pre-suit settlement negotiations before where someone threats "we'll sue you!" To which my response was "the courthouse is that big white building on the square, you take the papers there."
I agree with you absolutely as a matter of law any homicide needs a thorough investigation, and I'm pretty solid in the opinion that the varying claims of witnesses, Zimmerman, the evidence etc is exactly what's supposed to be resolved by a trial. Maybe Zimmerman acted in self defense, maybe he didn't, isn't that why we have jury trials?
On the other hand, the average cost for a lawyer to defend a murder trial is tens of thousands of dollars. The police and prosecutors can't be too cavalier about filing cases where they know there's a strong self defense argument.
On the third hand, particularly in a case like this, you've got all sorts of facts that make it a firestorm, and even if you think you can't prove your case, maybe you file one and let the jury decide.
I wonder if they were thinking, "if we just ignore this, it'll go away." I think that this case, due to the obvious outcry, should fall in the third hand...though it's all easy to say this on the flipside.
In light of the recent publicity of what an awful person Rush Limbaugh is, many black women began pointing out how ridiculous it was to see liberals up in arms about Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke. After all, Rush had been saying things about black women for years that were just as bad or worse. Where were the boycotts and campaigns then? Sandra Fluke seemed to resonate with the general populace because, and you’ll have to excuse my cynicism, she was white and upper class. Upper-class white women don’t deserve to be called something as degrading as “slut”. Sluts are people who deserve it – Ms. Fluke didn’t qualify. Black women, on the other hand, are ‘otherable’ enough to escape notice when they are thus described. While everyone was pointing out how Limbaugh didn’t understand the issue (in reaction to his non-pology), black women understood: Limbaugh had gotten away with it before, so his read of the situation was very different from that of those who just clued in to his bigotry.
Trayvon Martin was 17, a good student, and not associated with any kind of criminal past. Therefore he didn’t deserve to get shot. Can you imagine the reaction if he had gone to the store for a beer or a pack of smokes instead? Or if he had been in that neighbourhood because he was in foster care? Or if he had been a C student instead of a B student? All it takes in cases like this is the presence of a single imperfection for the victim blaming and ignoring to begin. Trayvon Martin is far from the first black teenager to be killed despite being innocent of any crime. The reason this story has legs is because we can’t find something with which to drag him through the mud as we exonerate his killer.
The instant that a victim is shown to be imperfect people - particularly in the media - are less likely to speak up for them, even if you are demanding justice for their killing. It's not even that a past error or slightly frowned upon action justifies the killing, it's that it can make the victim less sympathetic.
The instant the victim isn't as pure as the driven snow there are far fewer people willing to support them. And sadly that saying is very relevant.
I get your point, but also think that should bring even more focus to the inequalities of justice and law enforcement between races in our society. Sure it's easy to pass something off if the kid is a member of a gang and dies from gang violence, but what about the rest? We generally don't worry ourselves over every death or the fact that a lot of the killers go free.
Giroir had already been assigned to desk duty for his involvement in a traffic stop that ended in a shootout.
According to WWL-TV, Giroir "pulled over brothers Justin and Earl Sipp for a traffic violation on March 1, and a shootout erupted after two officers were called to the scene to back [him] up."
I'm finding a few sources, but none unbiased and the details are all messy. The man they shot was called Justin Sipp. That should be enough to find more.
Although it also seems that Giroir had form before that incident as well.
To be honest, I find it difficult to find any sources that aren't biased. I've seen very little reporting on his Twitter account which was rather...rough. I saw it before Twitter took it down (I didn't know they did that.) Despite that, I know that your actions on social media do not always show how you are as a person in real life, but it should still be looked at.
What bothers me is that people are so quick to retreat to their party's camps and either try to condemn Zimmerman to death, or smear Treyvon for being a rambunctious 17 year old. Personally I just want to be under the tent of due process and presumed innocence for Zimmerman, and justice, not vengeance.
That's really only the most extreme ends. Many people, myself included, think Zimmerman is in the wrong based on the evidence we've seen and are bothered that the investigation was shoddy and the proper actions weren't taken. That he's racist doesn't really come into the "guilty or not" arena, it's just a point of dicussion about the bigger issues surrounding the case. And those who are attempting to make Martin look bad are the minority, I think. Even my mom, who is usually quick to join up under the Republican's camp, isn't going along with it. She did bring up, at one point, about whether Martin was related or involved with the burglaries, but realized it didn't matter for the case at hand.
Presumed innocence is what we need from a jury, but I don't think it's wrong for us to discuss our own thoughts on the case given the evidence we've seen so far.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It's something we've all talked about multiple times - the vocal minority. If I yell shit the loudest, people will listen. If I yell controversial shit, I'll get even MORE attention.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It's something we've all talked about multiple times - the vocal minority. If I yell shit the loudest, people will listen. If I yell controversial shit, I'll get even MORE attention.
And if you fling it, you get your own prime time commentary hour on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.
