George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting

Postby jules21 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:47 pm

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, was found not guilty by a Florida jury in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager.

"They simply never had an overwhelming case," Kendall Coffey, a former US attorney in Miami, said in a phone interview. "Only one participant survived the killing and he claimed self-defence. These are never easy cases."

A not-guilty verdict is likely to trigger a fierce debate over self-defence laws, Marcellus McRae, a former federal prosecutor now at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Los Angeles, said in a phone interview before the jury's decision.

"What's this suggesting?" McRae said. "Can all of us basically deputise ourselves, questioning people we think are suspicious?"

Read more


you may be wondering what this has to do with cycling. the answer is: it holds some strong clues about why we struggle to get justice for cyclists on the road. there are striking parallels with attempts to prosecute motorists who have struck cyclists, namely:
- a unique US culture of gun ownership and use which has normalised such behaviour, where it would be seen as outrageous and unjustified in others - such as in australia.
- this is similar to our motoring-centric culture, in which the act of striking and killing or seriously injuring a cyclist is broadly seen as normal, in that the motorist tends to be perceived as just going about their everyday business, only that a cyclist happened to get killed or maimed in the process.

- the victim being a part of a minority which is broadly viewed with suspicion. trayvon martin caught the attention of george zimmerman while simply walking down the street after buying a bag of Skittles. it was not likely the skittles which caught his attention.
- misunderstanding or disrespect for cyclists' rights to use roads has similarly been associated with a broad lack of sympathy for them, when injured in collisions with motor vehicles.

and the most important one:
- a justice system which has institutionalised protections for shooters. the defence of zimmerman's acquittal has mostly been around "the justice system took its course - justice is blind". but justice is not blind. it may or may not be in the courtroom, but the protections put in place which govern how courts adjudicate over such cases certainly are not. they place very little onus on shooters to defend their actions. this makes securing a conviction difficult.
- most or all of the above apply to cycling. in recent prosecutions of drivers who have killed or injured cyclists, the courts have been unable to compel the drivers to substantially defend the standard of their driving. all that was necessary for the defence was to cast doubt on whether the cyclist may have been negligent.

most reasonable people will look at the Zimmerman case and shake their heads, wondering how this guy was allowed to walk free. cyclists in Australia do the same thing, in cases against what appear to be very straightforward examples of dangerous driving resulting in serious injury or death to cyclists. justice should not be about complex legal principles and clever lawyers turning black into white - it should be about upholding community standards of behaviour.

the crucial point in all of the above points is that the relevant standards of behaviour - the defensible use of firearms or operation of a motor vehicle - are set well before these cases go to court. so long as the law fails to deliberately and explicitly impose higher standards of behaviour - on the use of firearms in the US or drivers in australia (and elsewhere) - prosecutors will continue to be forced to undertake prosecutions with one hand tied behind their back.

people will say "the court followed due process, justice was served" but justice is not served when the court or legal process is wrong in the first place.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

by BNA » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby gabrielle260 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:11 pm

Great post Jules!
Just as you said, I wondered why you wrote a post about this case, but now I've read your post you have me thinking more deeply about our justice system.
Andrew
gabrielle260
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:48 pm

thanks andrew.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby human909 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:56 pm

I agree too. But I felt there wasn't much more to add so I didn't post earlier!
human909
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby LinzOC » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:57 pm

jules21 wrote:most reasonable people will look at the Zimmerman case and shake their heads, wondering how this guy was allowed to walk free. cyclists in Australia do the same thing, in cases against what appear to be very straightforward examples of dangerous driving resulting in serious injury or death to cyclists. justice should not be about complex legal principles and clever lawyers turning black into white - it should be about upholding community standards of behaviour.


Most reasonable people will read into the case and see that it wasn't some gun culture or poor oppressed kid being picked on - there are actually other issues at play that also involve major media organisations doctoring transcripts to meet their own agenda. To me this was a straight forward case of self-defence by someone who was being assaulted by a physically larger and arguably stronger person. The State tried for murder, they have to prove the guilt, not the defendant prove his innocence.

None of this is like recent court cases in Australia - specifically Queensland. You are liking two unrelated cases from two completely different cultures and seeing connections that are not there under a loose banner of community standards. I live in Darwin, full of cashed-up bogans and the like - all stereotypically against cyclists. Yet the car driving population is polite and while I'm sure there are incidents I've never had a problem, in races or just on the track.
LinzOC
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:15 pm

Yeah.. Well its far from a straightforward case. BUT self defence is what was argued and the prosecution had to prove different. And they did not manage that. I dont actually see the relationship between that and the cyclist accidents. Arguably in those cases the defence should have had to prove innocence having clobbered a vulnerable road user from behind after seeing them. BUT everyone.. in nearly every society ... has some right to self defence, and even lethal self defence.
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:04 pm

LinzOC wrote:Most reasonable people will read into the case and see that it wasn't some gun culture or poor oppressed kid being picked on - there are actually other issues at play that also involve major media organisations doctoring transcripts to meet their own agenda. To me this was a straight forward case of self-defence by someone who was being assaulted by a physically larger and arguably stronger person. The State tried for murder, they have to prove the guilt, not the defendant prove his innocence.

try the same thing in australia and see how you go with a self defence argument. no chance - murder, any day of the week. both australia and the US have similar justice principles around having to establish proof of a criminal offence. but you would almost certainly have got two very different results for the same act, in both countries.

the reason is - US states (inc. florida, where the shooting occurred) have explicit legal protections for gun ownership and use:
a. you can more freely own and carry a side arm over there.
b. you can 'stand your ground'. it's unclear precisely how the altercation occurred, as there are only 2 people who witnessed it. 1 is dead, and the other is unlikely to tell the truth about aspects which may paint him as guilty. but what was established was that Zimmerman made a decision to confront Martin - whether violently or not. it's reasonable to suspect he did that in the knowledge that if push came to shove, he could and did use deadly force to ensure he would walk away unharmed. initiating a confrontation, particularly armed with a firearm, will seriously compromise your ability to argue self defence in most other countries, including australia.

this is similar to cycling safety laws in that what seems like (un)reasonable behaviour cannot be accepted as such by a court, which is compelled to make lopsided findings like "ok yes he drove his truck at 100km/h past the cyclist, but he left a 10cm gap and if the draft sucked the cyclist under his wheels, this is not the driver's responsibility as he had to pass and he said he thought it was safe." i'd argue (along with many other cyclists, i'd assume) that a more reasonable position would be for a court to be able to require a driver to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of fellow road users.

again, the point being, these principles are enshrined in law, long before a court gets to draw judgment on a case. by then, the ability to hold someone accountable for an unsafe act may be minimal.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:08 pm

Nope thats wrong. Its true its rare to have the legal possession of a firearm in Oz and need to use it in self defence. But it has happened. And its true that police in Australia will nearly always prosecute such a self defence case (except where it was a cop mind you) BUT lots of self defence cases using firearms have been successful even so. Including some rather more dodgy ones. So even in australia his claim might stand.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/judge-praises-boy-who-shot-mothers-attacker-20130612-2o3qj.html

I cant find a post on Mick Gatto's 'self defence' shooting but IIRC it was way dodgier than this one

But you are entirely right about the cycling stuff.
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:32 pm

Percrime wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/judge-praises-boy-who-shot-mothers-attacker-20130612-2o3qj.html

I cant find a post on Mick Gatto's 'self defence' shooting but IIRC it was way dodgier than this one

i don't want this to be a debate over the shooting case, as it would be a short one, but there were extenuating circumstances in both those cases. namely (and from memory), both guns belonged to the person who got shot.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby LinzOC » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:11 am

jules21 wrote:the reason is - US states (inc. florida, where the shooting occurred) have explicit legal protections for gun ownership and use:
a. you can more freely own and carry a side arm over there.


In some places (obviously Florida).

jules21 wrote:b. you can 'stand your ground'. it's unclear precisely how the altercation occurred, as there are only 2 people who witnessed it. 1 is dead, and the other is unlikely to tell the truth about aspects which may paint him as guilty. but what was established was that Zimmerman made a decision to confront Martin - whether violently or not. it's reasonable to suspect he did that in the knowledge that if push came to shove, he could and did use deadly force to ensure he would walk away unharmed. initiating a confrontation, particularly armed with a firearm, will seriously compromise your ability to argue self defence in most other countries, including australia.

Stand your ground had nothing to do with this case according to the former Police Chief ( http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justi ... index.html ) and the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/us/ju ... anted=all& )

None of which has anything to do with cycling deaths in Australia.
LinzOC
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:51 pm

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:55 am

LinzOC wrote:Stand your ground had nothing to do with this case according to the former Police Chief ( http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justi ... index.html ) and the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/us/ju ... anted=all& )

you will almost certainly go to jail in australia if you arm yourself with a gun, start patrolling the neighbourhood, instigating a confrontation and then try to argue self defence. you're missing the point - i'm not saying what he did was illegal in the US - rather that the law has been shown to be an ass by allowing it. we absolutely have the same problem with cycling and traffic laws in australia. that was my point, not debating the legal detail around the shooting case.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby rkelsen » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:58 pm

jules21 wrote:you may be wondering what this has to do with cycling.

Yes, and I think you're drawing a long bow in trying to align the two in any way, shape or form.
jules21 wrote:most reasonable people will look at the Zimmerman case and shake their heads, wondering how this guy was allowed to walk free.

Most "reasonable people" would withhold their opinion on this. Given the circumstances, the facts of this case would have been very difficult to ascertain. You cannot say with absolute certainty that the result would have been different in Australia.
jules21 wrote:you will almost certainly go to jail in australia if you arm yourself with a gun, start patrolling the neighbourhood, instigating a confrontation and then try to argue self defence.

There were no witnesses, so how can you state this as fact? Were you on the jury?
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4326
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:24 pm

rkelsen wrote:Most "reasonable people" would withhold their opinion on this. Given the circumstances, the facts of this case would have been very difficult to ascertain. You cannot say with absolute certainty that the result would have been different in Australia.

i think you can take it as given that i "cannot say with absolute certainty" what a court would find anywhere, anytime. what i'm doing - like everyone else - is expressing a view.

however i stand by the fact that the result would have (in my view) been different - if only as patrolling a neighbourhood, armed with a handgun is highly illegal in australia, amongst other legal differences between the two countries.

this is my point - not debating the merits of the trial in the US - but how differences in laws determine what amounts to the arbitrary concept of justice, as it is upheld in courts, as opposed to the concept that many or most of us think of it as - which is typically not bound by the same technicalities and limitations.
rkelsen wrote:
jules21 wrote:you will almost certainly go to jail in australia if you arm yourself with a gun, start patrolling the neighbourhood, instigating a confrontation and then try to argue self defence.

There were no witnesses, so how can you state this as fact? Were you on the jury?

that fact wasn't disputed in the trial, but again, arguing the detail of that case is missing the point i'm trying make.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:31 pm

Armed security guards have shot people in very similar conditions and escaped conviction in Australia actually. I would argue that the facts in some of these cases ..and I am thinking of one in particular.. very closely mirror this. Female security guard approached suspicious person.. was beaten to a bloody pulp.. drew her weapon and shot the assailant dead. In the particular case he was actually driving off so the conditions were even worse. But its a very very smilar case. Isn't it?

You may disagree with the outcome of the Zummerman case. I am not comfortable with it myself but honestly it seems likely to me that in the light of the evidence it was the right verdict. BUT I think (as I have already said) its entirely the wrong comparison for you to make .

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bashed-guard-cleared-of-murder/2006/08/04/1154198320209.html

IIRC the person shot had an uncle who was a cop. Might go some way to explain the charges even being pressed. Note the prosecutions comments.
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:48 pm

the armed security guard:
1. had a license to carry a gun (which Zimmerman, who was not a security guard, wouldn't have had in australia), and
2. was attacked in the course of carrying out their professional duties, whereas Zimmerman - while possibly also attacked - made it his business to intervene in a situation which posed no threat to him, until he (and Martin) decided to allow it to be made into a situation. there is a major difference between being attacked out of the blue, and after stopping to check out someone who you decided was suspicious - clearly communicating the fact that you have judged them to be a potential criminal.

those cases are completely different. but again, if you're trying to argue that US (florida) laws governing the carrying of firearms and use of deadly force are sufficiently the same as those in australia that a court would make the same judgment on the same case, that's patently untrue. can we just agree on that basic fact, which is the point i am trying to make?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:08 pm

We cant agree. Zimmermann to do the patrols he was doing while armed in Australia would its true have had to be licensed as a security guard and had the appropriate duties and pistol licence. And? Zimmerman was legally patrolling and legally armed. He may and I believe did have a CCW licence. Which means he had the appropriate pistol licence. As he would have had in Australia. Its arguable that he was carrying out his professional duties too. Personally I think he was being an officious ass... so here he might have been working as a PSO


THe distinction on the use of deadly force is interesting as Zimmerman has the lesser case to make. Zimmerman claimed to have shot in self defence. If you accept this claim then nothing more is to be said. He should not have been charged..end of case. BUT the security guard here shot a fleeing felon. And under australian law its arguable that she is only supposed to shoot in self defence. WHen one reads the act in Australia it seems one cannot shoot merely in defence of property. So thats the harder defence to carry off.

Given that Zimmerman was complying with Australian law... and while legally armed faced the same situation..as some inquisitive transit officer will someday.... I would expect an acquittal to be more than possible.

So we cant agree.


I am entirely with you on the bike stuff. But Zimmerman on the evidence (and I dont know the case that well) may well have deserved acquittal. Its the wrong comparison to make.
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby jules21 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:37 pm

Percrime wrote:THe distinction on the use of deadly force is interesting as Zimmerman has the lesser case to make. Zimmerman claimed to have shot in self defence. If you accept this claim then nothing more is to be said.

i think you're assuming self defence has a generic or uniform meaning. it absolutely does not. some US state laws have a broad interpretation of what may be deemed self defence, while other jurisdictions (in the US or in other countries) have much stricter definitions - including a duty to retreat.

this quickly gets beyond my sphere of knowledge, but i get the impression Zimmerman benefited from a particularly broad interpretation that exists in Florida law.

again, this is at the heart of the point i'm trying to make - people often assume that if a case goes through 'the courts' - then justice is done (unless someone screws up). but justice has different meanings, in different countries and jurisdictions. its arbitrary nature is why we should not automatically accept a court's decision on such matters, including those relating to duties on motorists to protect cyclists on the road.
Percrime wrote:I am entirely with you on the bike stuff. But Zimmerman on the evidence (and I dont know the case that well) may well have deserved acquittal. Its the wrong comparison to make.

for me, it's not so much whether ZImmerman was innocent or guilty - i have my suspicions (there is a lot of background on him, on the web which gives an insight into his attitudes and thinking) - but particularly how a court adjudicates over cases where there is a significant degree of uncertainty around the evidence - i.e. who gets the benefit of the doubt, and how much. this to me is where i see parallels with how courts deal with cycling incidents.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8649
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby human909 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:25 pm

Self defence!? Yeah right!

That story is as likely as the "he swerved into me" story.
human909
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby exadios » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:52 pm

jules21 wrote:
George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, was found not guilty by a Florida jury in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager.

"They simply never had an overwhelming case," Kendall Coffey, a former US attorney in Miami, said in a phone interview. "Only one participant survived the killing and he claimed self-defence. These are never easy cases."

A not-guilty verdict is likely to trigger a fierce debate over self-defence laws, Marcellus McRae, a former federal prosecutor now at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Los Angeles, said in a phone interview before the jury's decision.

"What's this suggesting?" McRae said. "Can all of us basically deputise ourselves, questioning people we think are suspicious?"

Read more


you may be wondering what this has to do with cycling. the answer is: it holds some strong clues about why we struggle to get justice for cyclists on the road. there are striking parallels with attempts to prosecute motorists who have struck cyclists, namely:
- a unique US culture of gun ownership and use which has normalised such behaviour, where it would be seen as outrageous and unjustified in others - such as in australia.
- this is similar to our motoring-centric culture, in which the act of striking and killing or seriously injuring a cyclist is broadly seen as normal, in that the motorist tends to be perceived as just going about their everyday business, only that a cyclist happened to get killed or maimed in the process.

- the victim being a part of a minority which is broadly viewed with suspicion. trayvon martin caught the attention of george zimmerman while simply walking down the street after buying a bag of Skittles. it was not likely the skittles which caught his attention.
- misunderstanding or disrespect for cyclists' rights to use roads has similarly been associated with a broad lack of sympathy for them, when injured in collisions with motor vehicles.

and the most important one:
- a justice system which has institutionalised protections for shooters. the defence of zimmerman's acquittal has mostly been around "the justice system took its course - justice is blind". but justice is not blind. it may or may not be in the courtroom, but the protections put in place which govern how courts adjudicate over such cases certainly are not. they place very little onus on shooters to defend their actions. this makes securing a conviction difficult.
- most or all of the above apply to cycling. in recent prosecutions of drivers who have killed or injured cyclists, the courts have been unable to compel the drivers to substantially defend the standard of their driving. all that was necessary for the defence was to cast doubt on whether the cyclist may have been negligent.

most reasonable people will look at the Zimmerman case and shake their heads, wondering how this guy was allowed to walk free. cyclists in Australia do the same thing, in cases against what appear to be very straightforward examples of dangerous driving resulting in serious injury or death to cyclists. justice should not be about complex legal principles and clever lawyers turning black into white - it should be about upholding community standards of behaviour.

the crucial point in all of the above points is that the relevant standards of behaviour - the defensible use of firearms or operation of a motor vehicle - are set well before these cases go to court. so long as the law fails to deliberately and explicitly impose higher standards of behaviour - on the use of firearms in the US or drivers in australia (and elsewhere) - prosecutors will continue to be forced to undertake prosecutions with one hand tied behind their back.

people will say "the court followed due process, justice was served" but justice is not served when the court or legal process is wrong in the first place.


I do not know in which state you live but here in WA the concepts of self defense, let alone "Stand Your Ground", have yet to be written into the Road Code. So, it is very rare to have a motorist offer a defense of, "I had to take the cyclist out because I feared for my life".
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:54 pm

human909 wrote:Self defence!? Yeah right!

That story is as likely as the "he swerved into me" story.



I sort of agree. And I have my doubts about Grollo's story too. But on what little I know about the case its hard to see another verdict (in both)
i think you're assuming self defence has a generic or uniform meaning. it absolutely does not. some US state laws have a broad interpretation of what may be deemed self defence, while other jurisdictions (in the US or in other countries) have much stricter definitions - including a duty to retreat.


Its true that Florida has specifically not got a duty to retreat whereas australian law actually does (which is the reason for the security guard being charged) BUT Zimmerman claimed to be under the bloke... have just been threatened with death and the guy was smacking his head into the concrete. I dont think you actually could find a country in which (assuming these facts could be established ) that the use of a firearm in self defence would not be justified in that case .

Oh and I agree he got into the situation by being dumber than dog droppings. And on the face of it a racist profiling interfering asswipe. BUT that does not mean he has no right of self defence.

All the elements of the most rigorous law of self defence appear to be there . A threat to kill. Genuine fear for ones life. Inability to retreat. No immediate prospect of rescue in spite of trying to elicit it. I think Zimmerman is lying but he had some supporting evidence and if it stood up to Jury scrutiny its the right outcome. And I dont think it would go differently here. Thats what I meant... its the wrong case to hang your hat on
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby exadios » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:10 pm

Percrime wrote:
human909 wrote:Self defence!? Yeah right!

That story is as likely as the "he swerved into me" story.



I sort of agree. And I have my doubts about Grollo's story too. But on what little I know about the case its hard to see another verdict (in both)
i think you're assuming self defence has a generic or uniform meaning. it absolutely does not. some US state laws have a broad interpretation of what may be deemed self defence, while other jurisdictions (in the US or in other countries) have much stricter definitions - including a duty to retreat.


Its true that Florida has specifically not got a duty to retreat whereas australian law actually does (which is the reason for the security guard being charged) BUT Zimmerman claimed to be under the bloke... have just been threatened with death and the guy was smacking his head into the concrete. I dont think you actually could find a country in which (assuming these facts could be established ) that the use of a firearm in self defence would not be justified in that case .

Oh and I agree he got into the situation by being dumber than dog droppings. BUT that does not mean he has no right of self defence.

All the elements of the most rigorous law of self defence appear to be there . A threat to kill. Genuine fear for ones life. Inability to retreat. No immediate prospect of rescue in spite of trying to elicit it. I think Zimmerman is lying but he had some supporting evidence and if it stood up to Jury scrutiny its the right outcome. And I dont think it would go differently here. Thats what I meant... its the wrong case to hang your hat on



The Martin - Zimmerman case is not illustrative of the problems of "Stand You Ground". There are other much better examples - including one that occured in Jacksonville, FL, where a man shot and killed a teen who was playing his stereo too loud. There was another instance, not in FL, where two gang members were having a shootout. One of them hit, and killed, a third party down the road who was completely unconnected - other than becoming a victim. The gang member was standing his ground and so was not charged.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:14 pm

Yes exactly. The stand your ground law is entirely irrelevant to this particular case
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby warthog1 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:58 pm

This thread is a precis for the futility of trying to stay on topic on this forum :|
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby Percrime » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:52 pm

Actually its exactly on topic. Jules21 drew a parallel between what he thought an unjust verdict in a wrongful death case under weird gun favouring us laws and a definitively unjust verdict in a wrongful death case under weird motorist favouring laws in Oz. I and some others pointed out that the parallel was fatally flawed, because the unjust verdict in the US was very likely the same verdict the same case would reach here in our anything but gun favouring laws.

How is that not on topic?
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin shoo

Postby g-boaf » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:29 am

I see the point that the OP is trying to make, but it's a long shot.

Our law isn't quite the same as the USA, but there are examples - like that case in QLD where the jury decided the driver wasn't at fault. :(

I don't see there is much that can be done about it - the car is king here and anyone who proposes to change that will struggle against the media and interest groups. :|
User avatar
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Next

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit