That was her mistake: she left a witness.
As I understand it, the primary purpose of these laws was to avoid having crime victims having their lives ruined even more in the aftermath of these crimes by having to defend themselves against prosecutions. Even if they are found innocent, it can be costly to the point of bankruptcy and beyond, extremely disruptive to the person’s live, and emotionally traumatic.
I could be wrong about the motivations of this law, but that’s my impression. Regardless, I am in favor of SYG laws for this reason. In fact, I think they should be made even stronger. In this case, Corey has made comments indicating that she considered the SYG law to be just another obstacle to overcome. And she was obviously not deterred.
O’Mara has said that GZ’s defense can cost up to a million dollars, and he is sitting in jail right now. Even if he is found innocent, I don’t think he gets his money or life back.
Who gives money to someone just because they’ve heard of them?
When you’re in fear for your life, you don’t shoot in the air.
When you’re in fear for your life, you don’t go out of your way to pursue someone either.
No one ever claimed that when Zimmerman followed Martin, he was in fear for his life.
Apparently, George Zimmerman repeatedly asserted he was fearful before he followed Martin.
No one ever claimed that when Zimmerman followed Martin (or before it), he was in fear for his life.
One would hope that, if the SYG hearing finds that he has no case to answer, he could sue the state of Florida. The point you make that needs emphasising is that, if Zimmerman’s story is true, he’s a victim of crime who is currently in jail, and if that is the case, it’s a serious injustice. This is presumably why many people support him - although in my case it’s justice and the process of law I support, not Zimmerman as an individual.
Nope, but the fact that he gave dubious statements about his state of mind when he followed Martin (and the reasons for it) may have a lot to do with why the state pursued charges against him.
If he said he was fearful of Martin while he was on the phone with police dispatch, because Martin was circling his vehicle in a threatening manner - and that doesn’t make sense in the context of his behavior or what he said at that time, then this ought to inform our assessment of the truthfulness of statements he makes about his state of mind or the reason for it three minutes after that.
The circling of Zimmerman’s truck by Trayvon may conceivably have been caught on the surveillance camera at the gated community. Though it’s unlikely the camera could have caught the actual shooting, with townhouses blocking the back street, you would think that if Zimmerman’s story deviated from what was witness able, and the investigators must have looked at the video, he wouldn’t have been let go so quickly.
Zimmerman’s neighborhood had experienced a home invasion. Keeping a suspicious person within eyesight to direct the police would be considered a brave thing to do.
I think his statement was initially taken at face value. (Indeed, witnesses who were distressed about hearing a teenager’s last cries for help were told that it wasn’t Martin that was screaming - although the consensus of the eyewitness reports seems to be that it was Martin that was screaming.)
It was only after they decided to look closer that the realised that there were contradictions in his statements.
Indeed. So why would he feel a need to assert that he had only gone “to check an address” and was ambushed on the way back to his vehicle? Hint: “Because that’s what happened” is not a good answer, because there ain’t no signs or addresses to check back there.
I still have doubts that Zimmerman ever admitted to following Martin. Nothing I’ve read makes this niggling detail crystal clear.
This is what I’m thinking he could have claimed in his statement:
Martin circled his truck in a menacing fashion. Zimmerman was so scared of this thug that Lawd knows he didn’t know what to do with hisself. He was practically peeing in his pants with fear, so there’s just no way he could have initiated a fight with this guy. He just sat there frozen, talking to the dispatcher, waiting for the scary black boy to leave him be.
But there’s one problem. How did he get out of the car if he was so scared of Martin? Well, Martin eventually stopped circling the truck and left the immediate area. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
“Whew”, Zimmerman thinks to himself. “Now the thug has gone away, I can leave the safety of my truck and look for a street sign!”
So he exited his car to look for the sign. On his way back to his truck, Martin ambushes him.
If this is what Zimmerman told the police, how many people who are defending Z now would be willing to say this is some fabricated bullshit? I’m betting very few.
No, Alexander would have been a good poster girl if she had actually shot the SOB. The law is very clear that you don’t use a firearm to gain leverage in an argument. Don’t draw a gun, don’t point a gun, don’t threaten somebody with a gun and don’t fire warning shots. That just proves you weren’t in imminent danger.
What I don’t understand is why she didn’t say she drew the gun to shoot him and had an accidental discharge and he ran away. That would have been perfectly legal. There is no law against missing. This is why you should never own a firearm unless you learn how to operate it and understand the laws governing its use.
You may be surprised to learn that providing false statements is not actually legal.
Maybe because she was being honest? I guess this another misstep she made that Zimmerman didnt.
Perhaps her way of defending herself was to give a warning shot as if to say “continue to mess with me and I will shoot.” I don’t understand why self-defense necessitates killing someone or even injuring them. It almost appears as if she was penalized for defending herself the best way she could without also hurting the father of her children.
If she gets 20 years for this while Zimmerman walks, do you think this is justice?
I haven’t read up extensively on that Anderson case, but according to the entry for that incident in the Tampa Bay Times piece (and a portion of another related article) y’all are missing some of the finer details of the case. To quote the relevant portion of the latter link:
To me, the biggest problem demonstrated by that case is the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing. I doubt the judge would have given her that sentence if he was able to use his discretion in sentencing.
P.S. The moral of that story, as it pertains to maximizing your chances to use SYG, is not only make sure you shoot to kill and leave no witness to give their side of the story, but also to carry your gun at all times so you don’t have to go get it when someone needs killin’.
Those are the kind of things the law is encouraging.
If both of their stories are true, then yes. She threatened someone with a gun, Zimmerman defended himself. Although in the circumstances, 20 years would probably be too much.
If you are in danger, you don’t fire a warning shot.