Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin case has been poorly handled, Santorum says
Posted on 03/23/2012 3:19:52 PM PDT by AnybodyButBarry
In remarks after President Obama made his first public comment on the matter, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said Friday that the handling by Florida law enforcement of the Trayvon Martin case has been horrible and that the states Stand Your Ground law should not apply to the shooter, George Zimmerman.
Well, Stand Your Ground is not doing what this man did, Santorum said Friday morning at a campaign event in Monroe, La. Theres a difference between Stand Your Ground and doing what he did. And its a horrible case. Its chilling to hear what happened, and of course the fact that law enforcement didnt immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.
Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, has not been charged in the shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Seems like everyone and his uncle wants to get his 2 cents on on this. The only excuse for Rick saying anything about this case is that everyone else has already weighed in, including Barry and Newt, not to mention every talking head and race baiter on TV.
No, if the eyewitness account is true, he wasn’t “standing his ground”—he was lying on his back on the ground getting pounded.
Good grief. All of you shut up, already, you dumb politicians.
Who started the fight? No one knows.
No valid self-defense claim if Zimmerman started the fight.
That’s what police investigations are supposed to find out.
Eggs Ackley! We need a lot more information before judging! A witness says there was a fight, That GZ was on the ground, and losing his butt. The cops found blood on his face, grass and blood on the back of his head, and blood in the grass. The witness says they saw the fight, and heard GZ call out for help.
In this case Santorum is acting like Zer0. Both are stepping in it without knowing all the facts.
Slightly worse than Newt’s opportunistic remark.
Has any politician stood up for evidence and due process?
He just lost my vote.
A grand jury will investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old shot to death in a gated community in Florida on Feb. 26, state attorney Norm Wolfinger announced Tuesday.
On Tuesday the 20th it was announced there would be a Grand Jury on April 10th. What in the L do these people want? Is not the rule of law good enough?
Or do we need instant justice or perhaps we could have trials set up like Survivor or Dancing with the Stars? Just dial our vote in by phone or however that works.
Sure, let’s have Idiocracy. Someone here commented in the past that they didn’t realize Idiocracy was a documentary— they certainly nailed that one!
re: “the states Stand Your Ground law should not apply to the shooter, George Zimmerman.”
How does he KNOW this?? All we have are media reports of this or that - there has been no hard investigation done yet. Zimmerman may be guilty as sin, but nothing has been proved one way or the other - he’s being lynched by the media, politicians, and the poverty pimps. What happened to a nation of law and order? Get all the facts first and prove it in a court of law.
If the cops were negligent, then sue the heck out of them, fire the ones responsible (although that hardly ever happens), and, if Zimmerman murdered this kid in cold blood - try him then execute him, or at least life in prison where the prison populace with take care of him.
But, NOTHING has been proved one way or the other yet. The politicians are stumbling over themselves to throw this guy to the wolves - talk about “No justice”. What if it’s found out that Zimmerman was justified - what are these politicians going to say then? However this turns out, Zimmerman’s life of normalcy is over forever. He will never be able to live or work anywhere even if found innocent. What a country we have now. I cannot believe it.
So far, I’ve only heard Santorum make this ridiculous statment - the others will probably do the same or say nothing at all (neither of which is good).
Also, this is another Godsend to Obama - another distraction from his horrible “leadership” - now he can put the “republicans are all racists” issue on the front burner along with “Republicans hate women” issue to campaign on rather than the economy.
Unfortunately they are taking their cue from the idiot in the white house per se
Obama, who doesnt look like any of the presidents on our
money, was quick to call Sandra Fluke, who ,if had a daughter would look like Nancy Pelosi.
When will he call Trayvons mom, who doesn’t look like Obama’s
MSM likes to capitalize on ignorance. I'm of the opinion that anyone who hasn't lived in Southern Florida is at a serious disadvantage in discussing this case intelligently.
What Santorum should have said:
“It is unfortunate that the president has seen fit to stoke the fires of racial division in this unfortunate event, and even more so, that he has done so before a complete investigation has been made.
“It is the job of the chief executive, both personally and among his cabinet, to faithfully uphold the law, neither to commit criminal acts nor allow them to be committed for whatever ends. If he is intemperate or permits the law to be unfairly enforced or prejudiced, or makes an effort to bias the law with favoritism, he has failed in his duties.”
The short answer is that he must apprehend a threat. In order to justify use of deadly force, the threat being apprehended must be one of suffering serious personal injury or death, or, if a woman, rape.
looking at Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's "Torts - Cases and Materials" 9th edition, on page 104 under the heading of "Self-Defense," point No 6 says (without giving any case cite):
Retreat. One basic disagreement in approach to the privilege of self-defense focuses on whether the defendant must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger, rather than stand his ground and use force. It is settle that he may stand his ground and use any force short of that likely to cause serious injury. The common law was that, rather than kill his assailant or seriously wound him, defendant must "retreat to the wall." A minority of the American courts still apply this rule, and it is adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 65. The majority, chiefly in the south and west, have insisted upon a higher important of the dignity and honor of the individual and have held that the defendant may stand his ground and use deadly force, and even kill his assailant. [Remark about retreating from a gun bearing assailant skipped]
No relevant for this case, because this case involves the use of deadly force. But, for use of force that is not deadly, see Restatement 2d Torts Sec. 63. Self-Defense By Force Not Threatening ..., although it is legalese. See "m. Actor's duty to retreat."
The actor, if he reasonably believes that he is threatened with the intentional imposition of bodily harm, or even of an offensive contact, may stand his ground and repel the attack by the use of reasonable force, which does not threaten serious harm or death, even though he might with absolute certainty of safety avoid the threatened bodily harm or offensive contact by retreating.
Why should the police put any effort into protecting the media's credibility? The media is out to hang the police and prosecutor too, for not charging Zimmerman. If I was in the police chief's shoes, I would consider the media to be my adversary - and anything I said would be excerpted and rearranged so it would make me appear unreasonable, stupid, biased, etc.
Thank you for the explanation! :)
He doesn't. And, FWIW, if Zimmerman's account is correct, that he was returning to his truck and was surprised and attacked, then there is no application of "stand your ground" at all. In order for "stand your ground" to apply, a person needs an opportunity to retreat from physical blows or other use of force; and chooses to stand his ground rather than retreat. Absent an opportunity to retreat, the question about whether or not there is a right to stand ground doesn't arise.
The funniest aspect of this story is that to date, Romney has shown the best judgment, in not commenting at all on it, whereas Newt and Rick are grasping at the 1% of the black vote (1% of the 12% of the population that is black = 0.1% of the national vote) that is up for grabs, while neglecting the hordes of Hispanics who could vote against Obama for his nakedly racist interference in a local case that at worst, might involve manslaughter charges against a Neighborhood Watch Captain for killing a yet-to-be arrested juvenile delinquent casing homes for loot.
I don’t get it......an Hispanic guy shoots a Black guy, yet somehow some folks are acting like it’s the White Euro’s fault.
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.