If an aggressor goes out of their way to antagonize a defendant (who is doing no wrong) and a fight breaks out that goes badly for the aggressor to the point where they feel their life is in danger, do they actually have the right to kill that defendant and get off with no punishment?
To put it another way, is it okay to antagonize someone into a fight and if it gets out of hand, claim self defense and kill the other person? Because that's exactly what's going on in this Florida case. That's what the defense is arguing is "lawful," and depending on how this verdict goes down, I'm a little worried about what it means for the rest of us.
In states that support a self-defense law, it will be okay for enemies to stalk you and antagonize you into a fight in the hopes that they can justify that they "feared for their life" and had to put a bullet in your heart to stop you from killing them. Does anyone else have a problem with this? Does anyone else believe that it's wrong that an aggressor pay no legal penalty for setting deadly events in motion?
I don't think that this trial is just about what happened that fateful night in Florida. Nor is it about what you or I believe what happened and whether or not Treyvon was in the wrong and Zimmerman conversely in the right. The bigger picture is about how we can grant some citizens the right to kill on fear while systematically denying that right to others.
If you haven't been paying attention to the Treyvon Martin case, you should be. The ruling could very well be a matter of life and death for any one of us in the future if aggressors are emboldened by the knowledge they can face no legal punishment as long as they can claim self-defense, even if they started the fight.
*****
I will be skipping my post tomorrow to enjoy a Pacific Rim weekend. I'm seeing it tonight, tomorrow, and Saturday. If you wonder where I'm at, just think "watching monsters and robots slug it out on the big screen."
Have a good weekend. I look forward to reading your comments on what I've said here and whether or not this thought occurred to you about the trial.
Another thought-provoking post, Michael!
ReplyDeleteHaving lived in five stand-your-ground states (Texas, Florida, Georgia, California and Rhode Island) I must, however, respectfully disagree with your premise.
While living in the above states, I always felt my family was safer in the knowledge that I *would* defend them with all means necessary.
Praise the Lord it never happened and I pray it never will..
Because I would *never* stop to wonder if I have the legal right to use extreme force should I ever discover an intruder attacking my five-year-old boy in his bedroom...
I am therefore content in the knowledge that stand-your-ground states exist.
You can't claim self-defence against self-defence, it's idiotic. If I hit you and you hit me back in self-defence and then I hit you again, I can't now claim self-defence (because you landed a blow). That's not how the law (or the English language) works. I started it, so I'm the aggressor. Not hard to understand.
ReplyDeletemood
We'll never know what really happened.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy the midnight showing. I'll wait until Friday. Can't handle the odd crowds or late hour of a midnight show.
This isn't all that new. We had a case in my neighbor back in the 1990's that set the precedent that it's okay to hunt someone down and kill them as long as you fear for your life. Some teenage boys threw rocks at a man's house. The man got angry. He feared for his life. So he got his pistol and went outside and hunted down the boys who were parked a couple blocks away and shot the driver. The man claimed the pistol went off accidentally. He was found innocent of any wrongdoing. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I've stopped watching these things. I watched the Casey Anthony debacle. That was it for me. I've got better things to do.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnce a lawyer gets a client, I believe the truth gets mixed up and concocted to the point when no one will really know what happened during an incident.
ReplyDeletewe recently had a case of a many times convicted criminal who broke into a young family's apartment where the father of the family then stabbed him in the darkness in fear for his family's security. The criminal fled the apartment wounded and bled out in the street and died. The young father, who was only defending his two baby kids and his wife, was arrested. He is a very honourable man, famous for kindness in his neighbourhood, never had any problems with law, is extremely religious, he led many charity actions in his city. Yet, the police kept him in prison for almost a month. The public got furious and in the end he was released and left to defend himself as a free man. He still might get accused for the murder. The criminal who died had more than 30 crimes in his record.
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying I can kill whoever I want as long as I provoke them to throw the first punch? Excellent...bwahahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what they say, the fact remains he shot an unarmed man. That's excessive force in my book. Really though I'd prefer we didn't have Barney Fifes like Zimmerman out there in the first place. This kind of thing needs left to professionals. It's another example of why we need gun control because when people like Zimmerman have guns they feel an undeserved sense of power and authority and wind up using that gun in an improper way.
@everyone: You guys are not understanding what I'm saying. This isn't an agree or disagree thing. I'm not saying that Treyvon is innocent. Mark I'm not saying stand your ground is bad.
ReplyDeletePlease read my post again.
I'm saying that if Zimmerman gets off on his conviction, it will establish a precedent that anyone can hunt you down, kill you, and claim self defense to avoid a murder charge.
@PT: Exactly. You are the only one that understands what I am saying.
It would be an outrage if Zimmerman isn't convicted of outright murder. If he he killed that kid after provoking him he should rot in jail for the rest of his life. Regardless of what happened that night, Treyvon was a kid, he didn't deserve to die.
ReplyDeleteI was annoyed to hear they decided to admit Trevon's drug test results. Apparently the kid may have smoked some pot which as we all know turns people into raving maniacs intent on killing everyone in their path - NOT. And while we'll never know if Zimmerman intended to harm Trevon the fact is he had a gun and he did therefore, he should be convicted of manslaughter at the very least. imo. And I agree that not convicting will set a very dangerous precedent.
ReplyDeleteThis whole ordeal is frustrating. Since he started the fight, he went in with hostile intentions toward the defendant. You can't go back around and say "i killed him in defense when he started to win."
ReplyDeleteIt was his fault that the killing occured, so he should be charged to the fullest extent and not awarded any mercy.
Absolutely this thought has occurred to me: the Stand Your Ground Law is an open invitation to murder. I certainly don't hate George Zimmerman the way I did Jodie Arias but it was Zimmerman who brought this all on. Had he obeyed that 911 operator Martin would be alive today and George would be a hundred pounds thinner.
ReplyDeleteLegal systems have become so convoluted that victims seem to
ReplyDeletematter little these days.
You're right, Michael, this sort of precedent is very worrying. It takes a long view to understand the repercussions.
I completely agree with you Mike. This case is about much more than what happened that night and if a man can kill an innocent teenager and get away with it, what chance do we grown ups have? I have been having lots of thoughts about this case since it first happened. And trust me in Jamaica where there's mostly a back population, it's popular talk. And a big worry about when we go overseas. Enjoy your weekend and Pacific Rim.
ReplyDeleteThis is scary because if it swings the wrong way, it very well could set a precedent like you said, making it easier for aggressors to claim self-defence for something they started. Which is ludicrous. If you start the aggression, you're the aggressor. You should get punished. Period.
ReplyDeleteOn a slightly different note, here in France, the law on self-defence (la légitime défense) states that if you are attacked, you cannot defend yourself in a manner that is disproportionate to that of your attacker. Which means that if some one punches you, you can't defend yourself by stabbing him or shooting him in the head. I feel safer already. All 5'4 of me. Granted, fire arms are illegal here except for hunting rifles. But that doesn’t mean people don't have them....
Anyway, enjoy PR. Forget about everything for a few hours and just enjoy the adrenaline rush and shiny new man card. (:
I agree. Zimmerman, the half-wit, was told to stop following the kid. He did not listen and went off like Wyatt Earp. He deserves punishment, you do not bring a gun to a fist fight. No one has the right to stalk you and antagonize you into a fight until you are forced to act, then claim self-defense after they kill you. If this goes through and Zimmerman gets off, God help us all.
ReplyDeleteI don't think people should have guns period. Illinois has just passed a Conceal Carry law. The senators who passed it refused to give on the governor's efforts to make the law less vague. People are free now to carry concealed guns into a bar. Yeah, that's smart.
I remember a guy once, when I worked at the jail, who had tried to rob a liquor store. The owner shot him in the back with a shotgun as he ran away. The robber survived and was caught, but then he sued the liquor store owner for trying to kill him. Can't remember if he won the case or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this will set a precedent. Having worked for a forensic unit, this kind of stuff happens all the time in the judicial system. Thing is, this case is getting tons more attention even though there are worse cases out there. Why's that? Can't say, but there's plenty of interesting theories floating around. In the end, however this turns out, Zimmerman will be punished, just as OJ Simpson's life has been one of obscurity since his not-guilty verdict. The public has already made their choice regardless of what the court says.
ReplyDeleteI am so seeing Pacific Rim tomorrow.
Very incisive post, Michael. I decline to voice my feelings since I haven't been glued to the proceedings. I do believe the whole debacle is a tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI'm an ignore-the-big-trial person.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I understand you're point. And I agree. This trial will set a precedent and it seems to me that what this guy did to that kid was unlawful. He instigated the altercation which makes him the aggressor, not the defender.
ReplyDeleteJai
A worrisome case on many levels.
ReplyDeleteHave fun at the midnight showing!
Great post. It is an intriguing trial. Am I wrong in my assumption that a Hispanic man assumed a black man was up to no good because of his ethnicity? Seems a little ironic/in poor judgment to me if that's the case.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I love your sentence-long blog titles. :)
That's a pretty chilly precedent. Terrifying, actually.
ReplyDeleteWe had two guys trying to break into my house late one night, and a neighbor was just getting home from the All-Star game here in St. Louis.
My neighbor started screaming, and called 911. Scared the would-be-burglars away. I freaked when a bunch of squad cars surrounded my house.
There are better ways to scare off the bad guys than jumping in with a gun.
I had no idea this was going on. I need to watch the news more often.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to hear what you thought of Pacific Rim!
From my knowledge of the case, I think Zimmerman is in the wrong. Though I doubt any outcome will effect other cases. Wins like that are good cred for the defense team, but they rarely effect laws on the books.
ReplyDeleteThat's usually civil cases directed to the supreme court or state supreme court.
I have traveled on my own to countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand, Cambodia, Panama and most of Europe. At 18 and fresh out of high school, I hitchhiked across Ireland and Great Britain. The only weapon I had in all those places was a pocketknife, excepting the machete I used when camping on a beach in Panama. I always came back home to the U.S. safe and sound.
ReplyDeleteYet here in my own country cowards posing as tough guys or fierce women carry guns around to "defend themselves" even in suburban subdivisions. I have met such people and without exception I've found them to be paranoid cowards. And I'm not talking about people who must be armed for their jobs or people like my Dad who used a gun to shoot rattlesnakes while performing geologic research, or ranchers and farmers and hunters for whom guns are simply tools. I'm talking about people who lead boring, safe lives but are convinced anyone at any second will attack them or their families, therefore they must be armed.
By the way, here in Colorado we have a "make my day" law that basically says a person can use deadly force when being attacked by an outsider within his or her home. I agree with this law. But it does not say you can go out in the streets and use deadly force because you claim you were threatened. Were you really under a deadly threat? Then prove it.
I agree with you Mike, it's a sad state of affairs. Such a shame December 21, 2012 - meant the end of the world as we know it - via this kind of thinking.
ReplyDeleteAs I'm based in Australia, this is the first I've heard of this case. You make an interesting point though, one I agree with wholeheartedly. I'll be interested to see how the case unfolds.
ReplyDeleteStuff like this just makes me sick. I SHOULD pay more attention, because it really can and probably WILL affect the rest of us. But I get so sick, sad and upset when I watch it, that it makes me want to stay away.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, Mike! To me, as soon as Zimmerman left the car to pursue Treyvon, he lost the right of self-defense without some consequences to it.
ReplyDeleteI hope you have fun watching Pacific Rim!
I haven't been following the news, but I think this is a case of vigilantism gone to someone's big head. He should never have pursued the kid and even the police advised him not to during an initial call.
ReplyDeleteI've been glued to the case on HLN. Zimmerman needs to get some consequence for stalking Trayvon.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of things about this incident that are wrong. I've a feeling that George Z was always a bully, and joining the Neighborhood watch was just a legal way of throwing around his weight.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the legal system isn't about righting wrongs and discovering the truth. Its about winning or losing, determining judgement. Someday this decision may affect law everywhere, but only true criminals will be able to take advantage of it. The rest of us law abiding citizens will have no use for the ultimate judgement.
.........dhole
The stand your ground laws are scary enough if you ask me Michael but this trial adds a whole new terrifying light on what could happen if someone gets pissed and wants to start something. You can almost feel the tension- any bully can stand out there "hey boyeeee. What you doin boyeee." Next thing you know another dead body and the bully says "I was just talkin' to him, asking him what he was doing on my block..." It's the wild, wild west!
ReplyDelete