I think there's a few issues going on here. At face value the case looks racist, a Hispanic guy protecting his neighborhood by shooting a black guy. When the news first came out I'll admit thats how I saw the case without doing any research, completely unsupported. And I held that view until the verdict came out. Now it was wrong and I've come to support zimmerman a little bit more than I had before, but I still think there should be another trial charging him with wrongful death. I think that while Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, and the verdict shows that. No contest there. But that only takes into account Stand Your Ground from Zimmerman's perspective. If Trayvon Martin weren't dead we could take the case from his perspective as well. He stood his ground against Zimmerman who was clearly stalking him (a situation in which race may or may not have played a role). While my perspective on the case has changed I think that people's initial reaction to the case may have been much closer to the reality of the situation than this article wants it to be. While Zimmerman was found not guilty for defending himself, the verdict does not acquit him of any responsibility in Trayvon Martin's death. He may have been right in defending himself, but I still want to see him tried for the wrongful death, because I still believe that he was responsible for creating situation that required him to defend himself.
That's an interesting point that I've been saying. I have no issues with the verdict: ultimately, he felt he needed to use his piece. That doesn't absolve him from inciting a fight. Whether or not he is racist I do not know. He should get something for starting shit and getting himself jammed up, which resulted in his use of deadly force. That said, I think we really need to look at Florida laws. I live here, and actually support stand your ground. I think that his actions prior to Martins death should have been accounted for in this trial.
Agreed. Zimmerman, as anyone relying on "Stand Your Ground", should face some sort of penalties for using the law as it was not intended. The Florida justice system has set up a poor precedent here. Based on this case, anyone feeling threatened, even if they acted as an aggressor, may use deadly force. A middle-aged neighborhood watch member packing heat should always have some skin in the game before he/she faces similar confrontation. I believe if Zimmerman had knowledge of possible penalties (jail time/fines) for improperly applying "Stand Your Ground" beforehand, it's likely we would have never heard of him or Trayvon Martin. He would have already thought out better ways to avoid using his weapon. Florida makes it entirely too easy for someone jacked up on endorphins to "feel threatened" and end the life of another human being.
Zimmerman did not use "stand your ground" in his defense. Case law for self defense is pretty well established in every state - and differs. http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-fin.../ Ten seconds on Bing and I find a black man in 2008 acquitted by a jury for shooting a young white guy. It's not an uncommon thing. -XC
That is a highly interesting case for this discussion. Thanks for digging it up. It looks like there are a few key differences... Scott approached boys in the process of committing a crime. Zimmerman approached a boy in the process of walking home. But still and interesting case and comparison.
I'd agree with that, even though I'm not sure what needs to be looked at or changed. But I would like to see some provisions added to Stand Your Ground because of this case. I think that the law as a whole makes since, but there are some obvious exceptions that need to be made so that you can't get away with instigating a situation that requires you to stand your ground.