<p>
</p>
<p>The NRA will not only NOT rethink it, they are continuing to push it in other states. It’s going to be up to the states to repeal these laws, and if they do, it will be in the face of NRA resistance.</p>
<p>If I am afraid of someone I call the police and leave. If he was ssoooo scared why did he continue stalking him</p>
<p>Why he killed him, because he felt he could and when you allow untrained people to walk arond with guns thunking they are protecting the neighborhood this is what happens.</p>
<p>And whe you have a social mentality that you can shot people and claim self defense, well, this is what happens. And this is just one of several so called self defense shuttings</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The theory behind the stand your ground law sounds very logical. The application of that law, however, raises many questions. Hopefully the Florida legislature will take another look and see if some amendment or clarification of the law is necessary.</p>
<p>I am still not convinced that the stand your ground law is an absolute defense to what Zimmerman did. Unfortunately, one of the key witnesses is not around to testify any more about what really happned.</p>
<p>As more and more information has been coming out about the events of that night and Zimmerman’s own background and personality, something has just felt very “off” for me. I don’t think we can or should ignore the issue of race, and I do believe that racial stereotypes are very integral in explaining what happened on the night Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman, but agree with many commentators that even the issue of race in this case is far more complicated than many have made it out to be. </p>
<p>This is from a recent article I came across written by Leonard Pitts in stltoday.com:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Leonard</a> Pitts: The esssential truth of Trayvon Martin](<a href=“Leonard Pitts: The esssential truth of Trayvon Martin”>Leonard Pitts: The esssential truth of Trayvon Martin)</p>
<p>“a source of terror sufficient for a George Zimmerman to stalk and to kill him.” Walking while black.</p>
<p>At the same time, this incident seems to go beyond even the sort of racist “collective consciousness” mentality that Alexander talks about. I have wondered from the start whether Zimmerman might possibly suffer from some sort of personality disorder, that, combined with pre-conceived racial stereotypes, might help to explain his behavior that night. His numerous 911 calls during the preceding years certainly depict a certain degree of paranoia and a “need” to find criminal activity where there was none (most of those calls seemed to be related to non-criminal activities – the type of activities that other people would report to a home owner’s association, not call 911 for – and of the more recent ones involving “suspicious” individuals, most of those individuals were black). The rash of recent burglaries in the community had also been blamed on black males, both in the minds of Zimmerman and others in his community. And we are seeing a rather volatile personality emerge as more is learned about his past.</p>
<p>So, here’s one possible scenario: </p>
<p>It could be argued that from the moment Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin and saw that he was a young black male (which was revealed almost immediately in his 911 call), he became filled with a sense of fear and paranoia that increased with each minute, ultimately consuming him and and controlling his decisions, first to follow, and then to shoot Trayvon Martin. During the 911 call, his sense of fear and paranoia seemed to escalate with every passing second, as he became caught up in the moment and in the actual pursuit of his supposed criminal to the point that this was all hewas focused on. </p>
<p>Early in the call, while Martin is walking from the front entrance of the gated community along the road towards where Zimmerman was in his car near the clubhouse close to the entrance we hear: “Now he’s just staring at me”…seconds later, ”Yeah now he’s coming towards me”… and as the call continues, ”Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out”… “these a<strong>holes they always get away.” And then finally, the barely audible racial slur, “f</strong>***g *oon”… </p>
<p>Throughout the call, we can hear a thought process exhibiting growing paranoia interspersed with matter-of-fact answers to the questions asked by the dispatcher. By the time Zimmerman actually confronted Trayvon, he was so consumed with fear that, regardless of what happened during this confrontation or how Trayvon may have acted, Zimmerman was, by that point in capable only of seeing him as a criminal, intent on illegal activity. Because of his pre-conceived stereotypes about blacks and about criminals, could not distinguish between the two. And because of the degree of paranoia and fear he felt at that moment, Zimmerman chose to shoot Trayvon – not to defend himself, but because of what Trayvon symbolized, a criminal that he did not want to “get away.” By that moment in time, Trayvon may have already received his death sentence. Perhaps those words “you’re going to die now” were actually uttered by Zimmerman, but due to his warped state of mind, he has attributed them to Trayvon in order to justify his own actions, perhaps even unconsciously.</p>
<p>So the question facing the AG before filing any charges might be whether Zimmerman may have acted out of racism or a bias towards blacks and whether this was some sort of hate crime, or whether he was just a very mentally disturbed individual? </p>
<p>The police may have even known this about mental state when they questioned him that night, and given his history of past 911 calls, they may have even believed Zimmerman to be harmless and therefore treated this call as more of a nuisance call that needed to be checked out (sort of like the boy who cried wolf). And as a result, failed to investigate as thoroughly as they initially should have. </p>
<p>Pure speculation on my part, of course…;)</p>
<p>Fortunately for all of us, we cannot be convicted today, nor our credibility and character impugned, based upon speculation that the damning evidence will be discovered in the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Okla</a>. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It’s OK to Shoot - ABC News](<a href=“Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News”>Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News)</p>
<p>Was this lady trained to use a gun? Or was this one of your “self defense shuttings?”</p>
<p>“Fortunately for all of us, we cannot be convicted today, nor our credibility and character impugned, based upon speculation that the damning evidence will be discovered in the future.”</p>
<p>Too late Bay. Martin’s character has already been massively impugned. So much for “wait until all the facts are in.” More amazingly, most of this impugning occurred after he was shot dead. Apparently “speak no ill of the dead” only applies to, um, non-Trayvon types.</p>
<p>Hopscout-yes that case was clearly a self defense shooting! This young mother was truly afraid for ter own and her infant’s life, when an intruder entered her home. She even checked with 911 to see how to respond. Do you seriously not see the clear differences here?</p>
<p>As a Florida resident I pray we at minimum add back the requirement to flee before using deadly force. It boggles the mind to think that was removed from the SYG law here .</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Z may well have felt some paranoid general fear about what “they” were doing to the neighborhood. And he expressed that in the 911 call; he said something to the effect that “They always get away.” Immediately after, he CHOSE to leave the safety of his car, and pursue Trayvon. </p>
<p>This statement following by this action absolutely fails the test for killing in self-defense, which is “fear of death or great bodily harm.” The law only allows us to kill if we have reasonable imminent fear for our own individual life, not vague general fear about the crime rate in our community.</p>
<p>Z’s behavior may speak to feelings of rage, or frustration, or assumptions about what “they” look like, or even his long-thwarted desire to be a cop. But not fear.</p>
<p>hops, there is a long-established right to use deadly force against an intruder in your home. That’s hardly the same thing as pursuing someone, in a public space, based on vague ideas that the person is “suspicious.”</p>
<p>I was referring to impugning character in a court of law. You cannot use speculation as a basis for discrediting witnesses, as has been done here.</p>
<p>Also, what is a non-Trayvon type?</p>
<p>How about this…Z sees a suspicious guy in a hoodie, he follows him and then confronts. Martin doesn’t like being confronted, words are exchanged and maybe just maybe, Martin slugs Z, then jumps on him bashing his head into the ground as Z claims. Z, in fear of his life, shoots Martin dead. This would be your SYG. Yes, law might be horrible, but if Martin was the one who physically started the altercation and did indeed bash Z’s head into the ground, then maybe it was self defense at that point…even though Z initiated the confrontation, but not physically.</p>
<p>Yes, no signs of altercation because Martin never got hit. I just don’t understand the rush to judgement and so many here so sure that Z is guilty. </p>
<p>…and please spare me other ways this could have went down, I’m well aware of all the possibilities.</p>
<p>The problem with your scenario is in the very first sentence – why did Z follow and confront? That’s the job of law enforcement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The crux of the issue is the last two steps which goes well beyond SYG. Florida’s SYG according to even one of the law’s drafters wasn’t meant to cover someone who did the last two steps as Z did. </p>
<p>Through the last two steps…he went from “Standing your ground” to escalating the issue. </p>
<p>Moreover, on a dark February night and considering Z wasn’t a uniformed law enforcement officer and the fact that one cannot tell whether he’s legit or a stalker/local thug up to no good…Martin had at least just as strong of a case for SYG if he chose to confront Z. </p>
<p>How was he to know on a dark February night that the heavy set man following him wasn’t a stalker or some local thug angling to do him harm?</p>
<p>I do not think that people know that Z is guilty. What we do know is that Z has not been judged by a jury for killing an unarmed innocent teen. He is free it continue to walk that neighborhood tonight, with his gun. But of course he really can not do that safely. Someone might ID him and feel threatened… and feel free to blow him away. The current law has failed us all.</p>
<p>Geeps-you say there were no signs of altercation bc Martin never got hit? </p>
<p>So are you suggesting that it would make sense/be acceptable to you that the FIRST action Z took upon being punched/pummeled was to fire his weapon at T’s chest? </p>
<p>Just wondering, several posters have said, let’s wait til the facts roll in before expressing our perspectives. A valid point, although personally I think expressing our thoughts and frustration on a thread is a reasonable action to take in a case like this. But why is it that even when a fact comes in, ie. two experts stating it is NOT Z on the 911 call, are we still not permitted to perceive Z as a liar for claiming it was him screaming for help? </p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC</p>
<p>Haven’t read all the posts but this Florida writer’s article is sensible and she obviously did not drink Hannity and O 'Reilly’s Kool-Aid like a few on this thread.</p>
<p>[Ana</a> Veciana-Suarez: No easy answers in Trayvon Martin case | Life & Arts | Dallas-Fort Worth …](<a href=“http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/28/3842858/ana-veciana-suarez-no-easy-answers.html#tvg]Ana”>http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/28/3842858/ana-veciana-suarez-no-easy-answers.html#tvg)</p>
<p>obviously you have never watched O’reilly…and who exactly is drinking the cool aid?..the few that have only stated that they will not rush to judgement?</p>
<p>The “rush to judgment” is to the judgment that this case has been handled very, very badly. This is why I am upset about this case:</p>
<ol>
<li>Zimmerman’s pursuit from the start seems by all reports (including police dispatcher) to have been unwarranted. No pursuit, no death.</li>
<li>Zimmerman’s call gives reason to think he’s profiling Trayvon (“they always get away,” use of word that sounds like it rhymes with goon.)</li>
<li>Investigation stalled until parents were able to muster public outrage.</li>
<li>After public outrage mustered, backlash against Trayvon occurs.</li>
</ol>
<p>Why this is not just another case of he said/he said, someone’s dead, tragedy:
- profiling of T by Z.
- stalled investigation</p>
<p>Why I get a really weird feel from all this:
- reactions I don’t understand:
a. that race of Z matters (white or half Hispanic, he ain’t black, and for whatever reason, targeted the person who was.)
b. that T’s imperfect history (suspension, gold teeth, other things that Z couldn’t possibly have known when he pulled the trigger) has any bearing on the action Z took
c. Weird reappearing talking points (that “we don’t need you to follow him” doesn’t mean “don’t follow him” – I mean really, do people not understand basic conversational English??? When a policemen says “I need you to do this” or “I don’t need you to do that” only the most disingenuous sophist isn’t able to grasp meaning)
d. the “Yeah, what about THIS case-I-just-heard about on such and such a website” red herring. - The need to do all the above, rather than nodding and saying “Yeah, there’s something really weird about this, and this kid should not be dead” which no matter where you fall in the political spectrum, I don’t get isn’t the normal reaction for some percentage of people.</p>