I came across this interesting ACLU document. If is from 2010, so the data may be out of date.
Four of the six cell phone companies don’t retain text message content at all. Verizon is 3-5 days and Virgin Mobile is 90 days. Since Virgin Mobile is owned by Sprint now, I wonder if the policy has changed?
Except that really doesn’t apply to this situation. How does a person retreat when held on the ground in a beating? Under no circumstances do I want the right to defend myself taken away.
Even assuming that’s what happened, it doesn’t end the inquiry. How much of Zimmerman decision to continue to track Martin instead of waiting by his truck for the police was a result of his knowing that the law protected his right to “stand his ground?”
if that law didn’t exist, perhaps the next Zimmerman will worry about being sued into oblivion… and stay in his car.
Sued for what? Where was the threat from Martin that suggested retreat? At what point prior to the confrontation did Martin pose a threat to Zimmerman?
I believe this legislation occurred to remove one avenue for an overzealous prosecutor to “2nd guess” someone who defended themselves in an authentic self-defense situation.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
That reminds me of the popular saying among ‘self-defense advocates’, “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
We should encourage people to avoid a fatal confrontation, yes. The question is how do we legislate this concept a way that doesn’t invite second-guessing of those acting in legitimate self-defense?
The duty to retreat gives people and prosecutors just one more opportunity to find fault; retroactively, with full benefits of hindsight.
Sure, looking back, a lot of people say, “Zimmerman never should have even been suspicious of Trayvon in the first place- Trayvon was doing nothing wrong!!”, “Zimmerman should have just stayed in his car!!”, “Zimmerman should have waited until he at least had a concussion!!”, “He should have identified himself!!”, or the latest one from Professor Nutcakes, “Zimmerman should have immediately administered CPR to Trayvon!!”.
Should we make it a crime to leave one’s car whenever a suspicious person is in the vicinity, a crime to keep an eye on suspicious people in your neighborhood, or not to identify one’s self to suspicious people? Should concerned neighbors, acting in good faith to protect their neighborhood forfeit their right to self-defense should they do any of these things? Should that confer up on the ‘suspect’ the legal right to relentlessly assault and batter them (unless the neighbor can prove that their original suspicions about the person were accurate.)?
Maybe we should criminalize the ancient right of citizens acting in good faith to protect their neighborhoods and do away with the ancient tradition of respecting (i.e., not beating the shit out of) one’s elders? Maybe every Dennis the Menace episode should end with Dennis beating the shit out of Mr. Wilson as he screams for help. “Gee, Mr. Wilson, you’ve got a problem now!” Or maybe we should keep it simple. Maybe we should just discourage our youth from beating the hell out of neighborhood watch captains as they scream for help? My vote is for the latter.
I think analytical hindsight allows one to make a case for 2nd Degree Murder out of a self-defense situation. Having a duty to retreat just gives people one more avenue to do that.
As Magiver said, restoring the duty to retreat would not have made a difference in this case. Because there is an overwhelming indication that Z would have retreated if he could.
The law may need some tweaking, but not based on anything from this case.
None, especially considering he never exercised it. He screamed for help and tried to get away. If anything, he would have been ‘counting on’ his right to self-defense. But I may not even leave my house if I thought I’d have no right to defend myself. It’s a natural right, not something created by law.
He had no reason to think that Martin was going to attack him. It* appeared* that Martin was escaping the area. So he went to see where he was headed. It was an entirely reasonable thing to do given the known circumstances at the time. Only hindsight allows one to so confidently conclude ‘he should have stayed in the car.’
Let’s say the story had ended with the police apprehending a notorious felon, in large part due to information Zimmerman relayed to the dispatcher when he looked South at the “T”. He would be rightly praised for his proactive efforts in keeping his community safe. Nice work George! He would have shown up in article like this:
Turns out Trayvon was not a notorious felon. Turns out he was not fleeing. Turns out he would attack Zimmerman. Turns out that he would not stop attacking Zimmerman. Turns out the police would not arrive in time. Turns out that none of the neighbors would come out to help him. Turns out Zimmerman ended up in a position where he reasonably believed he had to shoot him to avoid death or great bodily harm. I don’t see why he should be expected to have foreseen this outcome.
The idea being promulgated by certain people that Zimmerman was a crazy racist hell-bent on killing black people is clearly negated by his history. This was a confrontation.
Zimmerman was concerned that Martin had been committing crimes. Crimes had been committed in this neighborhood by hoodie-wearing black males. Are we really going to blame Zimmerman for being on high alert? As far as I’m concerned, if you want to dress like a criminal, expect to be treated like one.
That said, I don’t think anybody here has the facts of the case, including me. Maybe Trayvon was innocently walking home with his Skittles and Zimmerman ran up to him and tackled him.
Maybe Trayvon initiated the confrontation and decided to school an “uppity” white/hispanic?
Both scenarios seem plausible to me.
I found a bunch of them in the Pit thread you started. As predicted, they agreed with what I was saying. Also predicted correctly: it didn’t sway you one iota.
Racism is not “viewing things through the lens of race.” It is discrimination against one group of people, usually for the actions of a few. Being on the guard for racism cannot be racism, anymore than a prejudice against bigots is bigotry.
It might be problematic, but it’s not racism. Thus calling someone a racist because of it will never, ever go over well.
This is an interesting view.
At what point, though, does “being on guard” actually become discrimination?
It seems to me to be pretty obvious racism if I watch a group of Hispanic teenagers carefully after they enter my store, to make sure they don’t shoplift anything… but don’t pay any extra attention to Asian teenagers, because after all those people don’t steal.
In analogous manner, if I immediately impute poor motives to one racial group when discussing an event, because I am “on guard” for racism, isn’t that itself racial discrimination?
And?
What of it?
Weighing the loss of human life against the failure to earn a laudatory mention in the newspaper… I have to tell you that my judgement still comes down on the side that it’s better that no one die and your brave efforts remain unrecognized.
Again pointing out that this summary rather generously weighs the facts in one direction.
When we discuss the criminal trial of Zimmerman, we of course have to weigh the facts that way, because to convict Zimmerman we must adduce contrary facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
But now we discuss general public policy – we no longer owe any particular deference to assuming Zimmerman’s innocence. So I’m not nearly as sanguine about your summary as I would be if we were discussing the trial.
So what I’m saying is simple. Zimmerman exits his car. He knows he has a gun. He knows the law will support his use of deadly force as long as he is acting lawfully. He chooses to walk into the cutaway because, in some part, the existence of the SYG law buoyed his confidence.
Even if, as you imagine, Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman placed himself in harm’s way. I argue now that without the SYG law’s subtle urging to Zimmerman, without its unsaid message that society supported his right to go armed into a situation of potential conflict, Zimmerman might have never taken those first steps.
Even if Martin was the match, SYG was the gasoline.
As I stated before, Zimmerman was heard banging his flashlight on the dog potty, so he was just standing there. The reason the wind sound died down during his phone call is likely because he turned his back to the wind and rain, which would seem to imply that he was also standing still. Where is the following?
If you are proposing some kind of duty to avoid suspicious persons, wouldn’t that equally apply to Martin?
I am walking thru the neighborhood with my Skittles. Here comes a scary white guy. He might be armed. If we revise SYG so that Zimmerman has some kind of duty to stay in his truck, doesn’t Martin have a duty to run away or something?
Regards,
Shodan
The former of the two scenarios is not plausible because if Trayvon were innocently walking home, then he would have made it home in the time it took Zimmerman to finish the remainder of his call. There is no question that Trayvon either hid near the top of the “T” or he doubled back to confront Zimmerman.
Of the two, I picture Zimmerman’s actions as at least possibly being influenced by knowledge of the SYG law. Sure, everyone has a general duty to avoid conflict. What I’m trying to advance here is what steps might society take to avoid the loss of life tragedy. If the SYG law buoyed Zimmerman and in some part influenced his decision to step up to the conflict rather than avoiding it, then perhaps we should rethink the law.
It’s not about laudatory mentions. It’s about hindsight bias. My point is that none of Zimmerman’s actions were reckless or unreasonable and he acted appropriately in the situation, given what he knew (or should have known) at the time. Zimmerman didn’t have the benefit of knowing Trayvon was staying in the neighborhood, that he wasn’t the burglar, that he wasn’t really fleeing, that he was going to attack him, etc. He had no reason to think it was going to turn out the way it did. It was entirely appropriate for Zimmerman to see which way this person had fled to.
I don’t believe the evidence merely fails to convince me he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence actually comes close to convincing me he is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t believe he chased, tackled, or did anything but attempt to surveil a suspicious person he didn’t recognize in his own neighborhood. Something I believe is entirely appropriate.
I understand what you are arguing. But there is no reason to think that Zimmerman’s actions were influenced at all by his knowledge of, or the subtle implications suggested by, having “no duty to retreat”. We can reasonably infer this because Zimmerman never availed himself of that privilege. He screamed for help. He tried to get out from under Martin. He let himself get beat on for quite some time before he finally fired his weapon.
If Zimmerman had no injuries, W6 didn’t see Zimmerman struggling to get up, or you believed it was Trayvon screaming for help would this make sense to me. If you said “the idea that Zimmerman could exercise his right to defend himself if things went badly” contributed to Zimmerman’s decision to leave his vehicle, then I’d say perhaps. But I don’t see any realistic connection with “Stand Your Ground” law, only traditional self-defense.
I guess we will never know for certain, because Martin is dead, but I don’t see much reason to assume that Zimmerman was possibly influenced but Martin wasn’t.
I am sure you agree that “hard cases make bad law”. It doesn’t seem to me that this is a good case to use to examine the “no duty to retreat” part of SYG. Because if the facts are as presented so far, Zimmerman could not have retreated and therefore things would have gone down (from the point of attack to the shooting) pretty much the same in another state that does not have SYG.
Note that I am only talking about the “duty to retreat” part here - the hearings and other parts are a separate issue.
But ISTM that one is not particularly more tempted to get out of one’s truck and confront a suspicious character if one is thinking “if he attacks me, I can shoot him and don’t have to run away” rather than “if he attacks me, knocks me down, busts my nose and sits on my chest bashing my head on the ground, I can shoot him”.
Besides, the fight went on for a while, and during that time, Zimmerman was screaming for help instead of reaching for his gun, eager to exercise his right to shoot first and ask questions later. One might expect that, if Zimmerman were at all emboldened to approach Martin by his SYG rights, Zimmerman would have been quicker on the trigger, and shot Martin sooner rather than later.
Assuming he had the opportunity to shoot earlier and did not avail himself of it, which of course we don’t know.
Again, I am thinking mostly of the “no duty to retreat” part of SYG. But I don’t see how Zimmerman would be any less (or more) encouraged to get out of his truck by the knowledge “if he attacks me, I will have a separate hearing to establish that I was acting in self-defense, and if I prevail I am immune to civil action too”.
But I think it would be really, really difficult to phrase a law that would discourage what Zimmerman did without harming a claim to legitimate self-defense. Zimmerman got out of his truck, either to look for a house number or to find Martin. As I think we agree, it isn’t illegal to get out of your truck to look for a suspicious character in your neighborhood. I am not sure how you would create a law that says “if you confront a suspicious character, and he attacks you and you shoot him in self defense, you are liable in some way for his death”. Because I can come up with all kinds of scenarios in which that will lead to injustice.
I am not a neighborhood watchman; I am just some schmoe. I am out walking my dog, and I hear a commotion between two of my neighbors’ houses. There appear to be two people there, one is a woman, and she is crying. I go over to investigate, and see two people, my neighbor and a man I don’t recognize. She is huddled on the ground crying, and he is pulling on her arm to try (apparently) to turn her over. I yell “what the hell are you doing?” And he attacks, knocking me down and trying to smash my head against the ground. I reach into my pocket, pull out the knife I use to cut the ends off my cigars, and stab him once. I cut the abdominal aorta, and he is dead before the medics arrive.
It turns out he is my neighbor’s brother-in-law, and they were arguing over an inheritance their great-aunt left them.
To what degree am I at fault for confronting this suspicious character?
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
During the physical conflict, only Trayvon did not avail himself of an apparent opportunity to retreat. Therefore, of the two, I picture Trayvon’s actions as the only one that seem to have been influenced by knowledge of SYG law. (though it would have been an inaccurate understanding of the rights it afforded him.)
Yes, but a more important question is do they have a duty to avoid potential conflict? And how likely must potential conflict reasonably appear to be before one is ‘duty-bound’ to avoid it?
Encourage our youth to not batter the local neighborhood watch captain. And if they just can’t help themselves, then at least encourage them to stop battering them once they scream for help. That’s how you prevent the loss of life.
The solution is not to remove the ancient right of citizens to surveil suspicious strangers in their own neighborhood. Concerned neighbors have been tracking suspicious looking kids since the dawn of time.
When you say Zimmerman made a decision to step up to “the conflict”, what are you referring to? A suspicious person that Zimmerman didn’t recognize approached his vehicle in an apparent attempt to ‘check Zimmerman out’. At which point, this suspicious person appeared to flee the vicinity.
When Zimmerman decided to leave his car, there was not an existing conflict he was stepping into. There was the potential for a conflict, but it did not appear likely.
If I accepted your premise, I would accept your conclusion. Your argument is valid. But there is no indication that SYG law buoyed Zimmerman to do anything.
He left his vehicle to surveil a suspicious person that he did not recognize within his own neighborhood. Citizens have been doing this since the dawn of time, and long before SYG came out. There is no reason to think Zimmerman would not have done the exact same thing 10 years ago. 100 years ago, or even a 1000 years ago (though I guess Zimmerman would have gotten off his horse instead of exiting his vehicle).
There is no indication to me that SYG (as it relates specifically to the Zimmerman/Martin case and in the way in which you are suggesting) needs to be changed. There are other cases that may suggest this, but not this one.
Well, of course it is. 
To argue beyond this point means discussing the evidence again, because you have evidently resolved almost every ambiguity in the evidence in favor of Zimmerman.
I don’t really want to rehash the evidence, primarily because I believe there is an audience of other folks reading that is unable to draw the distinctions between interpretation of evidence in the context of a criminal trial and interpretation of evidence in this context. That discussion, if we had it, would only strengthen already flawed conclusions.
But I’ll just invite you to imagine that Zimmerman lied, in such a way that you no longer trusted his account of events in any meaningful way. Or imagine that it could be proved the voice yelling for help was in fact Treyvon’s.
Would that change your views?
It depends. Are you part-white? Was the neighbor’s brother-in-law black? If so, you were obviously racially profiling them. You just jumped to conclusions that, since he was black, then surely he must have been beating up your neighbor, right Archie Bunker?
Why didn’t you call the police? Nope, you were going to be a vigilante. A regular Charles Bronson. And why didn’t you identify yourself? He had no idea who the hell you were. And are you not aware of the role dogs have played in the racial suppression of African Americans? Do you have no sensitivity to why a white man rushing you, with a knife, an intimidating dog, and screaming "What the hell are you doing!? would terrify a black man? How do you think he is going to react?
He was defending himself against your aggressive actions. You had a knife.. he had nothing. Why in the hell did you have the knife anyway? Why carry a dangerous weapon around with you at all times? To cut cigars? You were just walking your dog!? Why in the hell would you need to cut cigars while you’re out walking your dog? That doesn’t make sense. You obviously took that knife with you because you anticipated using it, didn’t you?
You should have just kept walking your dog and let a black man, who was doing nothing wrong, be. You could have called the police and just let them handle it. But you decided to play vigilante and rush towards him with your c*on-killing knife, your vicious, growling, ni**er-hating dog, screaming and swearing at him. He tried to defend himself but you pulled out your knife and killed him in cold blood. Murder in the 2nd degree. Manslaughter at the very least.
(But if the brother-in-law is white (or you are black) then you should be fine.)