Posted on 03/28/2012 6:33:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others have chosen to personalize the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., highlighting the racial issues by expressing concern for people who look like they do or live where “blacks are under attack.” Many conservatives and liberals have also already concluded that the shooter committed a crime. All of these reactions are premature.
In response to the shooting, Florida governor Rick Scott has set up a commission to review the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun-control organizations, including the Brady Campaign, have gone beyond this and even more drastically called for the end of right-to-carry laws.
But such outrage should be restrained until we have all of the facts. Zimmerman’s call to the police, which has been heard over and over again, does not appear to tell the whole story. There is other information that appears to back up the shooter’s account. That evidence, rather than racism, might well be the reason that police chose not to arrest the shooter. Fox 35 in Orlando spoke to one eyewitness, identified as “John,” the day after the shooting. He explained: “The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help, help’ . . . and I told him to stop and I was calling 9-1-1.”
The witness further indicated that it was the guy on top who was doing the hitting, and that the shot occurred while that attack was taking place. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, was the man in the red jacket. The police report corroborates the witness’s account: “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.” Zimmerman told the police, “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”
Zimmerman and his neighbors seem to have had reason for forming a neighborhood-watch group: During the past year, the Miami Herald reports, eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting occurred in their gated community. And Zimmerman had even caught at least one thief himself.
Prior to the spread of “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws, citizens who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. But obvious problems arise: Forcing a victim to take time to retreat can put their life in jeopardy, and a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun.
The Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws replaced the original requirement to retreat to a “reasonable person’s” standard, instead stating that lethal force is justified when a reasonable person would believe that a criminal intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. These laws do not protect those who shoot fleeing criminals in the back, provoke attacks, or use lethal force in the absence of a threat to life or limb.
The difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is where they apply: The Castle Doctrine applies in a person’s home, and Stand Your Ground extends the right to any place the defender has a right to have a gun. Forty-one states now have these laws in some form, though most have adopted them in the last decade, and the statutes haven’t caused any problems at all. By case law, six other states protect victims from having to retreat before using deadly force.
Allowing victims to defend themselves not only protects the lives of victims who come under attack, but deters criminals from attacking to begin with. I have myself conducted the only published refereed academic study on these laws, and I found that states adopting Castle Doctrine laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 8 percent.
But Martin’s shooting has raised a lot of confusion over what the Florida law would allow. Irrespective of the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman did indeed have the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. And when, before any confrontation, Zimmerman informed the police operator that he was following Martin, the operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was suggestive, not compulsory. By itself, investigating someone who is a stranger in the neighborhood does not imply a provocation. In addition, Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind.
If it turns out that the police report and witness are wrong, and Zimmerman was the aggressor, he certainly deserves to be punished. But if Zimmerman was attacked, pummeled, and bloodied by Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman had justification to shoot in self-defense. So far it looks as if the police made the right decision.
— John R. Lott Jr. is the author of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010). He previously served as the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. He is also a co-author of the newly released book Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).
He was following the thug, and when the 911 operator suggested he not do that, he stopped and was walking away when he was attacked. He was hit from behind, and that constitutes an aggressive assault.... the thug then pounced on top of him and commenced to beat him mercilessy, bashing his head into the cement... the only thing the thug did not take into account was that his victim (yes the victim here is zimmerman, not the thug) was armed. It looks like the thug picked the wrong guy to assault.
how is pursuing defined if at all?
The 911 calls define the minimus of the “pursuit”
The real issue is how did zimmerman end up with his back on the ground with Martin on top pounding him.
Elderly couple forced out of home after tweet claims killer of Trayvon Martin lives there
Published March 28, 2012 | NewsCore
An elderly Florida couple have been forced to move into a hotel after their home address was wrongly tweeted as belonging to the man who shot teen Trayvon Martin.
The tweets were traced back to a man in California and the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.
The couple, aged 70 and 72, have been harassed with hate mail, been hassled by media and had scared neighbors questioning them since the tweet, their son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel.
That’s the way I read it
Liberals want a new standard: if a black man is beating the sh*t out of you, you must yell, scream and die.
Neighborhood Watch groups will be taught to 'fear all equally': a 90 year old grandmother, a five year old in a wheel chair, a six foot tall black man who looks like he's on drugs, an Arab screaming 'Allah Akbar'. All MUST be seen as equally dangerous.
Liberal: "why didn't you call the police on the grandmother walking with a cane in the neighborhood? Why so few 6 year old children called in?". "Are you racist?" (consequence of this? Police would quit responding - citizens would fear calling for help)
In the mind of the mindless - innocent grandmother and thugs MUST be seen as equal threats.
Total denial of reality is required in this brave new world.. Any other stance - any stance other than denial of reality, will be seen as racist.
Wanted Dead or Alive posters, angry mobs, the big bullies in the press ( my big brother will beat you up) - they'll all be out. In the mind of the mindless - they are all to be treated the same.
.
Zimmerman did not follow - I'll get the link of the police call and link it.
If evidence shows Zimmerman was on his back being pummeled, and no way of knowing if the attacker was going to knife, shoot or strangle him, I ax-u, what the hell you gunna do if you had a gun??? Huh, mofo...?
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/911/call1.wav
There are so many various “facts” about that case.
For instance, I read/heard that Zimmerman did chase the “kid”, lost sight on him and was returning to his SUV when suddenly “kid” had come back to Zimmerman and the fight was on after a few words with each other.
Who can tell the truth about this unfortunate, fatal event.
No one should have died if everyone had been more thoughtful.
I don’t know what happened but that the above is one “narrative” I’ve heard.
Who knows....
From the reading I’ve done. Z’s story is more along the following - pursued him until he lost sight...at which point he turned around and headed away.. T then became the aggressor and attacked him. Z was on the ground be pummeled by Z (as per eye witness.) Z shoots T in self-defense.
If Z’s story is true, - stand your ground seems appropriate and justified.
She jumped conclusions, asked where was the “bombshell” and Pollack said
that this interview proved a point - MSM is part of the core in that MSM pretty much takes a story and runs with it without facts & is a group of “journalists” that really aren't real journalists.
That sounds like 5th column to me. MSM = 5th column. They have their agendas and run with them before any real facts - they run with their agenda - facts be damned.
We don't know that he did. Some reports state that, after the 911 call, Zimmerman turned around to go back to his vehicle. It was at that point that Martin followed him and attacked him.
One more thing, let’s not forget that a 911 dispatcher’s suggestion is not an order. They don’t have that authority nor should they.
From that 911 call, it sounds like Trayvon was casing the neighborhood. Zimmerman noticed his suspicious behavior and called police before he determined the guy’s race.
I can relate because of being followed in stores as a late teen and young adult! I now have to deal with the police in my own suburban neighborhood driving a BMW and being pulled over six times in eight weeks!”
I am so sorry to hear of your experiences, ForAmerica.
America is better that this.
1) At no point did the dispatcher tell him not to. She told him "we don't need for you to do that", which is not an order, or even a suggestion.
2) police reports of criminal activity at the community show a pattern of young black men being involved in burglary and home invasion in the complex, with the neighborhood watch being credited with the apprehension of four of the criminals. If a rash of break-ins had been committed by bands of Scandinavian immigrants, then Zimmerman would have been looking for white blonde-haired guys, but that wasn't the profile.
And if the cops show little interest in responding to anything that doesn't involve traffic fine revenue? What then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.