Yes I would have a problem with that, if you would know if you read the previous pages in the thread. What I suggested that the militia members could legally do is take a gun, go down in the street, and follow Zimmerman around, if they are concerned that he could be a threat to other people. They could stop him for questioning and ask him if he is up to no good. If he pushes them or tries to fight them, and they are in fear of danger to their persons, then by Florida law they are legally allowed to shoot him. I assume that you would have no problem with that solution?
Back to my earlier point about the police having evidence that they may not have released to the public yet, this entire incident reminds me of the Joe Horn shooting in 2007. In that case the media ran with the bits and pieces of information that were available to them and the shooter was generally considered to be guilty in the court of public opinion. This resulted in death threats against the shooter and a massive escalation in tensions around the community. When the case went in front of the grand jury it then became known to the public that the police had a report from a plain-clothes police officer who arrived on the scene and who witnessed the incident.
No, not at all. I think you must not have my posts very carefully. The thing that brought me into this thread in the first place was that people were arguing “I can see why the police would not want to charge Zimmerman, there’s no way to prove that he wasn’t acting in self-defense.” I thought, based on what I knew of the case, that this was not accurate, and that, if it was accurate, then the Stand Your Ground laws were even worse than I initially supposed.
I don’t think you understand that the fact that Travyon Martin died vs. some other teenager is not what has brought most people to this thread, I am sure the majority of the people talking about this case don’t know Trayvon Martin personally. I know I’m discussing it because it relates to laws passed in the US, laws with which I disagree. Maybe that gets on your nerves, but I think it’s a good thing for people to get interested in matters of public policy and legal issues. Learning about what is and isn’t allowed in the case of “Stand Your Ground” laws can only benefit us.
I would agree with that if a single member of the militia group confronted him, provided that person made no attempt to physically impede or physically harass Zimmerman. However, to think that a group of men has the same legal protection to self-defense against a single individual that one man has against another is a grossly incorrect understanding of self-defense law.
Yes, and in this post I wasn’t careful enough saying it, but in my previous posts I was clearly saying that it should be only one person at a time. In any case, does it really matter if there is more than one person? As long as they don’t make physical contact with him and don’t impede his progress, I’m sure that they are not breaking the law.
I didn’t say Martin’s behavior wasn’t legal. I was saying that it was stupid. Actually after reviewing the incident, I don’t see any behavior on either side that shows anything resembling common sense. The people that stayed inside and called 911 were showing common sense.
I think the “reasonable” story offered by Zimmerman is contradicted by the evidence. First of all by his own words; the shooter tells the 911 dispatcher he is going to follow the teenager, and then after the fact says that he didn’t intend on following the teenager, the reverse happened, the teenager pursued and attacked him ?!? Secondly it is contradicted by the evidence of the person on the phone with Trayvon, saying that Zimmerman was chasing Zimmerman and not the other way around. Zimmerman, to me, is clearly lying.
Obviously we disagree, but I think you’re wrong. The shooter’s story is not reasonable.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was just an ordinary person. A pretty awful person as these things go. But he had an injustice against him and some lawyers from the ACLU decided that this “nobody” should be represented and, long story short, we now have a pre-written paragraph that can be inserted into any cop show.
Rosa Parks, despite urban legends to the contrary, was pretty active in the Civil Rights movements. But, still, in the grand scheme of things, she was pretty much a nobody. Until she suffered an injustice and the offenderati who jump to conclusions before all the facts have come in said “these laws are bullshit” and made a move to change them. Why though? She was just a nobody!
And what’s the deal with that slut Sarah Fluke? Why the hell are we so upset that this nobody is getting ragged on? God people. I could understand if it was, like, Sarah Jessica Parker. She doesn’t have a star on the Walk of Fame but I’d still consider her a somebody and thus worthy of my attention.
Or perhaps, it’s the nobodies we should be most outraged about when an injustice befalls them. Because without our outrage, without our pressure to compel action, those nobodies remain nobodies, laws never change, and justice never gets done.
The difference between Miranda and Rosa Parks and Zimmerman is Miranda and Rosa Parks were treated to injustice by the state, and their actions in part lead to reform and improvement in civil liberties. You guys are arguing for the State to do something to Zimmerman, that is what you are advocating. You aren’t advocating for freedom at all, but rather for the State to conduct criminal justice on a specific criminal in the manner you insist. If you think that is similar to what happened during the Civil Rights movement or to the effects of the Miranda decision or to Rosa Parks you are extremely mistaken.
In fact, this goes against the general trend of those things in that it seeks to make government be a biased actor beholden to public sentiment in criminal trials. Part of the deal with Rosa Parks is those laws she was taking a stand against were popularly enacted laws, and the side of civil rights was advocating for the injustice of those laws regardless of their popularity. You’re arguing for something to be done to Zimmerman based on the random legal mumblings of a mob and not the legal authority and decision making of the people we as a society have entrusted to run our criminal justice system.