Federal authorities have announced that they are now intervening in the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. That will certainly enhance the completion of forensic evidence, which we discussed earlier as critical to a case like this one. I have previously cautioned that this is not such an easy case as has been suggested, even with the 911 tapes. One of the greatest barriers is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.
I am as angry about this shooting as others. However, there remain difficult questions under the existing evidence. The intervention of the Justice Department adds an interesting element While racism has been alleged, the statement by the Justice Department notably does not lay out the basis for intervention and does not say that local police asked for the assistance. That may produce questions from the family why this is a federal matter as opposed to a local matter. While Zimmerman is described as “white,” his family has insisted that “George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends.” That does not necessarily mean that this is not a hate crime or civil rights violation. However, it is possible that Zimmerman acted out of his zeal as a “watchman” as opposed to race — the stated view of the police chief.
The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa states “The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident.” Cooperating is a different matter than a request for assistance. If they were not asked for assistance by the police, the question is whether the Justice Department views the local police as itself somewhat suspect in the handling of the case. We previously discussed legitimate complaints about aspects of the police investigation.
The most significant issue is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The law protects citizens in their use of lethal force in self-defense. The law, found in 20 states, is an expansion of the protection afforded under Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” laws for shootings in the home. I have long been a critic of those laws.
The key component of the law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed.
The concern of these laws is that the use of reasonable force is already protected under the common law. The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force. The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law. The law states in pertinent part:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.
I have said that aspects of the case remains murky. That is not to say that an indictment cannot be brought on the existing evidence, as I has said before. Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls. Additionally, some have argued that the tape of Zimmerman has him using a racial slur, though many others have said that he is actually saying “punks.” An audio forensic expert could answer that question, which would relate directly to the purpose of the federal investigation.
Source: Washington Post
@Gene: You seem to be arguing with somebody besides me. As I said in my first post on this topic above, I agree with the SPIRIT of the SYG law.
I have NEVER said my opinion was the law, and I do not confuse what I think is morally correct with what the law actually is: They often diverge. I am not an idiot, I know full well that I cannot rely upon what I believe as fair to be implemented in the law, and often the law is the exact opposite of what I believe is fair.
That said, you say this: “It’s a duty to avoid violence until it becomes unavoidable. It is not a duty to run away.”
I am not a lawyer but I disagree on the face of the language: It is a duty to retreat if that is possible to avoid violence. In my view, “retreat” is synonymous with running away.
You then say, “You don’t have a right to escalate.”
I never claimed that I had such a right. What I have claimed all along is that I should have the right, everywhere, to stand my ground and not retreat to avoid violence. There is no fine distinction to be made; in some states retreat is legally demanded, and I think that is bad law.
In my opinion (not in the law) if somebody assaults me or attempts to harm me, I should not have any responsibility to avoid violence by retreating in any way. In my opinion (not in the law) if I choose to stand and fight an assailant, and in the heat of battle he is harmed or killed, I should not be liable in any way, even if I had the option of fleeing (or “retreat”) instead.
Forget how the SYG law is written or being used, this is a philosophical question, and a binary choice, either you believe somebody should be punished for refusing to retreat, or you believe that retreat, when available, is their choice to make and they should not be punished for refusing to retreat.
If you want to make arguments for the crowd, feel free, but you do not seem to be arguing with me about the philosophical point I am making.
” In my view, “retreat” is synonymous with running away”
Running away is hyperbole to retreat.
If you think this as a military man, you also don’t understand military strategy. Oh yeah, you aren’t an officer….so how would you get that?
I guess all those professional generals…they’re wrong too. Retreat = Running away.
You aren’t a lawyer, yes. But you are also ego with bullets.
“Running away” projects everything that is morally out of balance inside. You are stuck on macho and that is exactly what we are arguing against.
“my opinion”
doesn’t even match the existing “duty to retreat” laws. So not exactly sure what law you are so afraid of, because now you’ve moved this into “my opinion” land.
I get that your ego can’t back down. I’m very glad you were not Commander in Chief or we’d be stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan still.
Good luck with all that Tony. I hope you sleep well at night.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Carol-City-High-School-Students-Hold-Trayvon-Martin-Walk-Out-143836476.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-killing-galvanizes-florida-community-civil-rights-groups/2012/03/21/gIQAbQslSS_story.html?hpid=z1
The first closes its video with a still of Trayvon; the eyes, the eyes of Christ.
Does he see you failing him again? This world has gotta change.
And, no I don’t buy or dig portraits of dog’s eyes, orphin eyes, the Japanese pop ones, nor other maudlin stuff. But his caught me.
Just to let you know I haven’t gone over the top—-this time.
Great job Professor! thanks for the link Elaine.
Countdown with Keith …: Jonathan Turley explains the danger of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law
MCM,
I’m sure it does come from an older story. I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and his innovation in the martial arts is without question, but just the same, his true innovation (beyond realizing that traditional styles were a limitation on expression) was in synthesis and application of lessons – not original thought. He didn’t reinvent martial arts so much as created a new way of thinking about martial arts. I’d love to see the panels though. If you have Facebook, I have a profile created there (Gene Howington) I use for public communication and you can send them to me there. I prefer to use that channel. However, if you don’t have FB, with your permission I can send you an email to the address you sign in to WordPress for posting with instead.
BTW, Spike TV recently aired an excellent documentary on Bruce Lee called “I Am Bruce Lee”. If you get the chance, I highly recommend it. It had a lot of great vintage footage and interviews with family and friends that were most insightful about the man.
Thank you for the time, Gene.
Yes, Bruce brought something special to the martial arts. A chance to practice it without shame and hiding.
Before that, when I’d head around different parts of Missouri, Nebraska and Arkansas was a young man, if I used any of what I learned “don’t pull that Japanese crap!” (they didn’t say japanese, fyi)
Of course I used whatever solution called for, but it wasn’t thought of very well. Then Bruce Lee came along and was a star! The best news was that my teachers finally started making a living.
I’m actually working to study with some MA kin of Bruce’s teacher Yip Man’s son Ip Chun. The Wing Chun theory is also aligned with this principle we are generally talking about, appropriate measured response. No waste of energy, no desire to damage unnecessarily. Direct…to the point.
What I enjoyed about Bruce Lee’s public image was how he explained taoist principles like ‘water in the cup’, form and formless thinking to a western audience. Though I don’t think he was very tied in with the Chen family I draw my taiji from, it is essentially the same concept. No need to do much when the attacker is doing all the work. Enjoy some chai.
Greg, ever hear the story of the Japanese Tea Maker?
He had the unfortunate day upon him when he offended a Samurai.
Demanding a duel to restore his honor, the Samurai ordered the Tea Maker to be ready at dawn. The Tea Maker feared for his family and any harm. He had no training and no sword.
So he went to the sword master to at least learn how to hold the sword if he was going to die. The swordmaster agreed to give him a sword and began to show him how to hold the sword when he realize that the Tea Maker would not master this enough to be even fundamentally prepared for a duel.
Thus he asked, “can you perform the Tea Ceremony?”
“Yes, maestro, I can”
He then told him to arrive the next morning before dawn and perform the Tea Ceremony, sword at his side, as and face his death calmly without hesitation or fear. The Tea Maker woke the next morning, did precisely as the swordmaster advised. The Samurai arrived at dawn to see the Tea Maker performing the Ceremony, considered the scene, turned and walked away.
“I’ve seen “Enter the Dragon” many, many times and Bruce always called it his style “fighting without fighting””
if you email me I can see if I can send you the tapestries that this comes from. Old block print stories. Each panel a part of the story.
and yes, it is the art of fighting without fighting. My son calls it the ‘jedi’ way now. lol
OS,
You could be right
MCM,
In re your story.
I’ve seen “Enter the Dragon” many, many times and Bruce always called it his style “fighting without fighting”. 😀 That’s one of my favorite scenes in the whole movie.
Prof Turley is on Countdown right now. Tune in tonight if you can.
“Your belief and the operation of the law are not the same thing. ”
This is the distinction exactly.
I have beliefs too:
“It is better to sweat in practice than to bleed in battle.”
And from the wise Funakoshi “To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill; to subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill.”
See, I’m a hot blooded fighter by nature. Grew up that way defending people who couldn’t from about 5th grade. The kid was pigeon toed and reading ‘nerd’ books according to the bully. For no reason he gets hit and I dared to stand up and say, “no!”
I got my nose broke! But I stood there with a bloody nose and my fist in good Scottish pugilist form like my dad. But he didn’t hit the other kid again and stopped fighting. I wanted so bad to hit him again but didn’t know if I was allowed to. The violence had actually stopped but I was sort of suspended in the action for a while.
The ambiguity of knowing how or when or if you can defend yourself can end a life. If not your own, someone else. I went home that day and got scolded for getting in a fight. It was forgiven when I explained I was defending pigeon toed James. (nothing wrong with this condition in my eyes now, but that is what stood out to us all.)
But by the 4th or 5th time this occurred, I went from reluctant to quick draw. It was the difference between ambiguity and cocky. Gin ji du li, golden rooster stands on one leg. Very proud form indeed. Pride kills though.
By 19, I was fighting often and to complicate matters, I had now been trained in a few different forms of fighting and was like a cinder. I hadn’t really gotten serious at that point in trying to discipline myself just my skills. Skills were everything. What was lacking inside was an integrity sound enough to even extend beyond the bully in care. That wouldn’t come till I was near 30 and had to consider long term consequences I didn’t care about at 19.
See, what Tony might not appreciate here because I’m not concerned with his anecdotal feelings on the matter…I’ve seen very good men go to prison for bad choices on a good day. Their macho shit caught up with them while doing what we’d think of as the nice day. Tony might never have such a moment and I am not questioning anything about him personally, only this character he’s presenting of ‘I don’t have a gun, I’ve got guns! don’t make me submit!”
They weren’t being bullies but the bullshit chest puffers who actually made it worst to show how they weren’t going to submit. Some are dead.
Deescalation is a thrilling art that I think is beyond conventional fighting. Its meta fighting if you will. The art of fighting by not fighting.
Brings a good story up….
A boat in route on the river had group of people on board and after a bit of time a bully on board the boat started harassing the passengers by asking if any of them knew how to fight. He was intimidating them even threatening to rob them if he wanted. He was out of control.
He came upon one passenger who answer, “why yes, I have studied fighting arts, what art do you study?”
“I’m tough, I’m highly skilled and I can defeat all the styles, what style do you study”
“I have sought to master the art of winning by not losing.”
“What sort of art is that?! You can’t even form basic logic!”
“My friend, over there is a small island, perhaps I can show you?”
The braggart told the ferryman, “head over there, I want to see this”
The passenger then said to the ferryman, may steer us to that island.
“yes” and the passenger turned the boat towards the island.
“I’m sure you’re eager to demonstrate your great skill, we’ll be right there” said the passenger to the braggart.
He steadied the boat towards the shallow waters and drew the oar up to the island to hold the boat close to shore and said, “Shall we?”
The braggart eagerly jumped ashore and said, “lets go!”
The passenger pushed the boat away from the island with a good shove of the oar and the boat quickly started back down stream.
“HEY..WHERE ARE YOU GOING!? You can’t do that. I thought you were going to show me the Art of Winning by Not Losing!?”
“I just did.”
I have been reading Tony C’s post for at least 2 years. Tony C is not a gun nut … never has been. He is certainly not an NRA pusher or a fear monger.
This was a most interesting discussion and I thank you all.
Gene H:
good point, removing yourself from a possible confrontation is the best way to avoid a confrontation.
Why escalate when you can just say excuse me and be on your way. It is pretty easy to get into a fight any numb skull can do that. If they other person grabs you then kick his ass but only enough to subdue him.
raff, I don’t think it is ALEC trying to sell more guns. It is much more subtle than that, and much more important. It is a way to keep the millions of gun owners in line so they will “know” which side to vote for. It is not about money as much as it is about power and control. Gun sales are chickenfeed compared to what the ALEC crowd wants to take from the rest of the 99%.
Gene,
I agree with your take on the retreat issue. This “stand your ground” law is an ALEC law that is used to sell more guns. How many people have been killed since this law and similar ALEC laws in other states have been approved?
Gene H.
This was important for my understanding.
“No. It’s not. It’s a duty to avoid violence until it becomes unavoidable. It is not a duty to run away. I realize that it is a fine distinction, Tony, but it’s an important distinction. You don’t have a right to escalate. Period. End of story. If you think your staying in a public place is reasonable in a given circumstance? Make your case. Reasonableness is the standard. However, your right to be in a public place does not equate for you to having a right to be belligerent about it as an appropriate and reasonable response in the face of a threat.”
Will save it for later.
PS Tony, doesn’t your own words seem odd. “breaking a throat with the side of your arm and (killing?)…… ” seem (överilad) extreme to me.
How do you get along with this stance in this competitive world. I know, you will say, very well iindeed. Well, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
Took my 75 years to understand myself, and am still working at it.
Common law on retreat, unless retreat is not possible—-with exception to someone entering your house (my home is my castle) is the edict from 1500 england, the king’s men shall handle disputes.
Then we got duelling idiots like Andrew Jackson.
And now those who would die to preserve their right of not retreating.
Or in some cases pursue or attack and use the new law.
Sounds like we go back to 1400s or the caves again.
Conflict is universal. But this encouragement to confront and vent (not you Tony) is a cancer which has and will kill many.
“A duty to retreat is a duty to run from a fight, if retreat is possible, which is what I just wrote in a previous post.”
No. It’s not. It’s a duty to avoid violence until it becomes unavoidable. It is not a duty to run away. I realize that it is a fine distinction, Tony, but it’s an important distinction. You don’t have a right to escalate. Period. End of story. If you think your staying in a public place is reasonable in a given circumstance? Make your case. Reasonableness is the standard. However, your right to be in a public place does not equate for you to having a right to be belligerent about it as an appropriate and reasonable response in the face of a threat.
“I think a duty to retreat is a wrong standard to apply to the reasonableness of self-defense.”
And in the wrong jurisdiction, Tony, your ego and refusal to acknowledge the standard of judgment applied to determining reasonable action could get you prison time. Your belief and the operation of the law are not the same thing. Feel free to be as indignant about it as you like, but the legal fact of the matter is you’re wrong.
MCM,
You maybe should have been a lawyer. But that was meant as admiration, not advice.
But it is your sibok and this self-discipline which could be fascinating to me.
Suggestions to following up, preferably self-study. Finding a reputable sibok (guess that would be needed at one point) would not be easy.
It’s like finding a good therapist. Studying any form of esoterica requires a leader/monitor at times when the waves roll and the winds blow and darkness falls. Rumi and others have recommended it.
Links?
This book might interest you. You may have seen it when Mike S. reviewed it.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Takes a few moments to download. 40 pages should give you the drift.
You seem to read people and situations very well, but maybe this will give you something.