Ah - if enough misinformed people ("dream defenders") whine they finally get attention. As with most misinformation on the topic, the telling line says that Stand Your Ground (SYG) "...allows the use of guns in self-defense." That is not what SYG does - the allowance for the use of deadly force - including a knife, a firearm, a club, and so on - for self-defense (in defense of one's own life) is part of self-defense law and has been for centuries. The only thing that SYG did was remove the legal requirement to retreat if at all possible without putting one's self in lethal jeopardy.
So - this is simply a squeaky ignorant wheel getting greased. If the only way you can create indignation is to misrepresent the law, then you have no rational argument. It is a sign of the decline of Western Civilization that people no longer balk at talking about things they know nothing about and could learn about if they just chose to read. Just yell louder - it will enhance your credibility.
Even more disappointing are some of the comments:
1. Zimmerman didn't use "Stand your Ground" in his defense, because then he would have had to answer the awkward question of why Martin didn't have the same right to stand his ground. So even if they repeal it, it'll still be perfectly OK to pick a fight with an unarmed black kid and shoot him dead in Sanford, FL."
Let me start by trying to make this simple; Martin could not have done so because he was not in lethal jeopardy (one of three required conditions for the use of deadly force - that must first be met before SYG has meaning).
Now, Karen...I know state laws are pretty boring shit - but it IS important if one is going to talk about such issues that they at least give it a try. So check out FL Statutes so you can know what you are talking about. SYG is one small provision in the context of justifiable self-defense. I'd really like to take the time to spell it all out to you, show you why you are wrong, but you would not believe me anyway, since you KNOW the truth.
Suffice to say that, if you read that chapter of FL Statutes you would see that one must reasonably believe that their life is in danger to use lethal force in self-defense. If Martin thought that then he must have been high. There is no evidence - even at autopsy - to suggest that Martin was assaulted prior to assaulting Zimmerman; his fatal injury was secondary to his assault and battery of Zimmerman. I know - evidence sucks, but it is what it is. Martin had nothing to stand his ground about (and he could have kept on walking).
You see, this is where you sound clueless. The law does not say that if someone follows you or uses harsh language at you or questions you for being who you are, the color you are, or where you are, then you can assault them. That would not be standing your ground - it would be assault and battery (as it was in this case). The evidence, from both defense and prosecution, shows that this is what Martin did. He had no lethal threat to retreat from (or stand his ground against).
2. Next, decides to flaunt his ignorance: "It empowers people to attack when they feel threatened. With an insanely armed sub-population who tend to be somewhat scared already (why else buy a gun, except the small minority that actually hunt). It is a product of ALEX and the NRA and needs to go"
Again, please feel free to use the link above to read the law - it would be better than reading the Brady literature as this was their tag line when SYG passed - as it has been every where it passes. Yet there has been no evidence of shoot outs int eh streets and, BTW, murder rates are down.
If you read the law you will find that there is nowhere in the law about "feeling threatened". The standard is reasonableness - as in "would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger". But, again, this has nothing to do with SYG - it is merely the standard self-defense law that is in effect in all 50 states and other countries - it has been common law for centuries. Again SYG added one small phrase in the self-defense law that says "...does not have a duty to retreat".
So, as usual, people feel strongly about things they know nothing about. In fact, they prefer to exist on strong feelings and no information.
Once more - in the context of this case:
- Stand your ground was not relevant; not because there was some reason to think that Martin might have also been "standing his ground". He could not have claimed it because all the evidence shows that no reasonable fear of imminent lethal harm existed in him - he even talked about initiating aggression. SYG was not used because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat. Even without SYG on the books, had this happened pre-2005, Zimmerman was justified to act in his own defense. SYG was not necessary - pre-SYG one did not have to retreat if they could not do so.
- SYG is one small phrase in a long-existing self-defense law. It says only that one "...has no duty to retreat...". That does not mean you can go around guns blazing at any one who pisses you off. It means that, if you are physically attacked by an aggressor, you need not first decide "Gee, I wonder if I can run without getting killed" while someone is beating on you, holding a knife on you or pointing a gun at you. You know, no need to call a time out in the assault and ponder one's available avenues of escape.
- It remains clear that, given this situation, most of the people who are protesting self-defense law would have preferred that Zimmerman die of murder that night. The sad and tragic facts are clear - either Zimmerman was going to die that night or Martin was. Martin made the decision that lead to that inevitability when he decided to pummel Zimmerman - to initiate a physically aggression encounter - a decision that can never be justified in the face of non-physical confrontation (Sticks and stones and...). Once that happened, one of these men was going to die. That defines the situation in which lethal self-defense is justified - either the asailant or the target will die.
Clearly - if the law that allows using a firearm to defend one's self from a beating that was likely to be fatal is a target to be repealed, then it is clear that those wishing to repeal it wish that Zimmerman had died that night.
That only adds to the tragedy of this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment