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
Rick Santorum visited a firing range Friday during a campaign stop in West Monroe, Louisiana. The GOP presidential primary candidate took a few shots at a paper target, to applause from the crowd.
As he began firing, a woman shouted, “Pretend it’s Obama!”
Santorum, who was wearing headphones, told reporters later he hadn’t heard the comment.
“It’s absurd,” he said. “No, we’re not pretending it’s anybody, but shooting pistols. It’s a very terrible and horrible remark, and I’m glad I didn’t hear it.”
NBC reportedthat the U.S. Secret Service was looking into the comment.
No, had two closely aligned threads opened. Closed the other one
Tony C..
We are apparently of two different personality types. Gene H. and MCM have tried convincing you. Why should I do any better.
Do you believe in astrology? I don’t, but at times find the profiling there in agreement with observation as to personality type.
Got two experts on tap—–as friends. What’s your birth date. Can see what they say. That’s all they say they need.
PS Have not given them mine. Just friends.
PPS I did the electrical design of a B-52 base south of Bangkok in 65-66.
It was only money, not patriotism, also did 2 years as a SigOff, due to the draft alternatives—-a bit of a UCMJ by the manual soldier. But was I later effected by the info reachiing me? Yes. Did I have conscious self-doctrines? No.
Interesting to compare without rancor getting in the way. Or scorn.
Apologies, my laptop is somehow not in sync. Missing some posts and getting some. I posted here just now and it is gone now. Odd.
Guess it ís part of the host problems we experienced last week.
Will see if I can piece together it all.
Tony C.
All very well in theory, but as we see in Florica, it has empowered some to exact a penalty of death at their own unsupported decision—and walk away by saying “I felt threatened.”
Now keep your personal ideas, but let’s not sanction this law or others like it in so far 22 states. Some might even be near you.
@idealist: I am in no danger, in fact the opposite. My refusal to be victimized has served me well, and society well. Criminals (including a murderer) are in jail because I think punishment is more important than mere money, women and children and even businesses are safer because of it. Sometimes, suffering pain in order to exact punishment is the best thing one can do, both figuratively and literally. If that were not true, we wouldn’t have cops and soldiers.
“I would literally rather be dead than be the man that retreated and left my wife or child to be murdered.”
You make up some lively scenarios to avoid what people tell you. Where did anyone say you had to retreat and leave your “wife and child to be murdered”
Everything you are saying about “retreat” is so off base right now that it is virtually impossible to get you to understand ‘duty to retreat’. You’ve got a narrow view of retreat and NO, sorry, it isn’t in line with full military strategy.
You’ve got it wrong about “retreat” = “running away”
“Running away” is an exaggeration (since the word hyperbole seems to be too big for you)
I have never run away from a fight.
Retreat and Advance are equal parts of a tactical matrix.
You and I are not smarter than all the great military theorists and applicants who have tried, tested, and taught, retreat tactics FOR OFFENSIVE PURPOSE.
You are blabbing about ‘budgets and generals’ but clearly don’t understand the tactical advantage of a retreat. You’re stuck on stupid here.
I don’t know what messed up scenario you have in your head where any mention of retreat has you then subsequently paint a “i don’t want to abandon my kids and wife” garbage. You aren’t required to do that under “duty to retreat”. If you’re going to talk in a circle despite the facts, then you’re credibility is rather compromised here.
That you consistently give a negative bias towards “retreat” shows your knowledge of it to me, night and day. You don’t understand “retreat”. You have a singular definition that always comes out exaggerated, “running away”. This is completely false.
Retreat is the partner of Advance. They simply mean move forwards and move back. Moving back doesn’t mean run away, that is abandon. You should go back to your former military advisers and ask for a brush up. Your explanation is feeble as is.
In a pure 1 to 1 fight, retreat can bring an opponent off balance. It can cause an opponent to over compensate in striking distance and in ability to retain their own resources.
In a military campaign it has the same effect. Effective military leaders for centuries have used ‘retreat’ to draw apart a larger military. They aren’t “running away and abandoning their wives and children”. That is such an exaggeration that it shows where you’re unable to understand ‘retreat’.
As idealist707 pointed about Xerxes, larger armies found it hard to defeat smaller ones because they can use ‘retreat’ to pick off larger groups. The Scythians weren’t “running away” in the context you describe. They were simply moving back so the Persians could move in to the vacuum and then attack the drawn out armies.
Everything you’re projecting about this fear of “retreat” is exactly why these laws are so flawed. Citizens like you were already authorized to protect your families as you describe. You’re ignoring that. You’ve had a lawyer tell you flat out you are wrong, then you jump to “opinion” mode.
If you were to be facing 3 opponents at once, if you think you’re going to “stand your ground”…then you’re a fool. It would be wiser to spread them out. I know…I’ve done it. It wasn’t 3, it was either 7 or 8 and one by one they fell. But by having to keep coming into an area that I had just retreated from, they couldn’t do it side by side…but one in front of another. I essentially fought 1 person…8 times.
This is the tactical use of retreat, and you can now continue your personal redefining of terms as you wish. Next up…”squirrel will mean cat” – Fuzzy tail, 4 legs, and teeth. Close enough right? Who needs language when you can fudge it so much.
My great great great great x 40 grandfather, Guilleaume L’Conquerant was victorious in the Battle of Hastings by the effective use of retreat. His action drew Harold out from their defensive locations and to higher ground. He then was able to annihilate them with the Norman cavalry.
One key reason to retreat is to lead them to a more favorable area or even to draw them out of a public gathering. The old “lets take this outside” mindset.
Nobody truly fights without retreat. Punch thrown “advance” drawn back to recoil is “retreat”. It is forward and back. Not your yellow belly coward image of “retreat”.
So long as you keep “retreat” to mean “running away” you’re going to be locked in a false impression. I’d suggest you go get some military strategy training. You clearly didn’t pass that part of the class.
You aren’t smarter than Master SunYi:
“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
Book 10
“In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, turning their backs on us and pretending to flee.” But this is only one of the lures which might induce us to quit our position.
it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage”
Tony, I understand its hard to admit defeat. But for those who seek no victory, it is as easy a task as breathing. I’m not writing much of this for you but for others who are reading along with us and for a nice fresh examination of the benefits of creating a vacuum in a combat space.
I have zero qualms about offering my experience of the use of retreat because I know it is as essential as advance. The yin and yang of motion, forward and back. Not “running away!”
My deepest apologies for relentlessly beating on your feeble constructs, I feel as if I’ve totally taken advantage of your lack here and it is wrong. I admit I shouldn’t take advantage of your inability to retreat. I can only offer my apologies for letting you be my fish in a barrel for a day.
I knew when you first spoke you were exactly the type who thinks standing your ground is advantageous to victory and are exactly the type I find easiest to defeat because it is an incomplete fighter. In fact, my training is almost entirely focused on dealing with numbskulls just like that who think “ALL FORWARD” is the wisest tactic. That makes half my job easiest. They’ll do all the rest. They are the easiest to lead no less. They are not even a binary at that point.
Good luck.
@Michael: Retreat is running away, militarily or otherwise.
We retreat when we believe the cost of an exercise is not worth the gain, or that the gain cannot be had. It is a tactical accounting decision, not a moral or emotional statement. In war, the “cost” is the lives of soldiers, resources, time and ammunition. All of those are expendable resources. (Including my own life at one point.) Together they constitute a budget, and the generals decide how much to spend of each in order to achieve their immediate military objectives. If the cost in a battle appears to be higher than anticipated, that puts the budget of future goals in danger of being depleted, and relative priorities must be assessed. The current goal might be abandoned in order to preserve resources for more important future goals, or a reassessment of future goals and what is achievable with a new budget.
My life is the same as a military battle. Eventually it will be expended. In the meantime I choose my battles: I will, in most circumstances retreat from a weaponized opponent, especially if I am the only person at risk. I am loathe to retreat if others are at risk, my wife, a child, my mother, a sibling. Because the risk is greater, both to me psychologically, and to them.
To me psychologically because I would literally rather be dead than be the man that retreated and left my wife or child to be murdered.
I have no urge to protect my ego at the cost of the truth: Retreat is running away.
Sometimes there is good reason to run. But simply avoiding healable pain or injury from something like a fistfight is not, for me, a good reason. Often (IMO) it is better to suffer temporary pain if it means one will be seen as a difficult mark. That is a statement that does not meet with wide acceptance on this site, when I have expressed it as a political strategy, but I believe it: In the long run, one goal is to not be seen as a perpetual victim, somebody that can be bullied into submission and will never fight back or exact any price from the bully.
That is my personal philosophy. If you want to pretend “retreat” is something other than running away from a battle that will cost too much: Well you do what you must to salve a fragile ego. I see it for what it is, even if I am engaging in it, because I see no reason to lie to myself.
MCM
An interesting parallel you draw between the aggressive individuals who attack us with the corporations and other interests who mistreat us. (poor paraphrasing).
This can perhaps explain our need for heros of the Superman type, who can right the wrongs which we can not, and revenge us on these demons who plague us.
Can this be also a reason, we glorify our existing or would be representatives as they campaign? And also become so disappointed when some who don’t preach (but have perhaps promised) no longer appeal or satisfy our emotional needs for righting the wrong.
Playing to all segments of discontent by pointing out scapegoats seem the tactics in dominance with the Repug prez candidates.
As well as flashing their magic swords which will slay the demons: women’s unchecked lusts, contraceptives, health care, death panels, ——add at will.
Tony,
I join those who give Travon Martin a face bere. The face of us all.
The victims of all that is foul in our society, our religions and our institutions.
As I intimated earlier, and others confirm this notion, you are a victim of prior abuse**. MCC came to peace with his, as he tells us. Would that you could too. To borrow a word, you conflate retreat with defeat—a binary choice for you. You also conflate defeat with dishonor. Dangerous conflations.
Xerxes, the Persian head of the then known mightiest army, stood on the steppes of today’s Russia, and screamed aloud to the Scythians: “Why don’t you stand and fight”? They replied by messenger: “Because we will defeat you this way best.” (Rough paraphrase)
**Or you were never enlightened on the sweet path of reasonableness.
Like I never learned until a week ago (actually) the futility of using aggressive arguing as my final strategy when reasonableness failed to win.
So we are fairly closely related in our needs to win—–whatever the situation
.
Just as perhaps Gene H. is, but he fights so far in the short time I’ve been here the “right” fights which I can’t analyze, but he can.
You think you may win by wiggling here, and retain your concept of justice. . But retaining it, you remain on the path of great danger.
Tony,
“FAILING to retreat when violently attacked carries a legal risk which I do not think should exist.”
Actually, you are still creating an absolute condition that simply does not exist. Cherry pick yourself all you like. “If I am legally required to retreat when threatened, that makes threats a legal means of restricting my access to public space. Why should THAT be legal?” – Tony C. First, that’s not a philosophical question. That’s questioning a legal standard that you’ve improperly defined from the start. Second, in short Tony, it isn’t legalizing threats to restrict your access to public space. You are still conflating the duty to retreat into something that it isn’t. The standard is still reasonableness. If it is unreasonable for you to be expected to leave a public place, that in itself is sufficient to mean that physical retreat is not required. The duty to retreat is perhaps poorly named (much like global warming), but it is a duty to avoid violence until violence is no longer reasonably avoidable. Nothing less, nothing more.
Nice try. And by nice I mean really sad and pathetic. Try that Rove tactic on somebody else. The fact that I’m very rarely proven wrong isn’t because I’m always right. It’s because I’m trained to look at all sides of an argument and choose the winning argument before speaking. Your premise in this instant is based upon a faulty definition of duty to retreat. It is not literally a duty to run away no matter what you seem to think. I’ll stipulate that it’s a reasonable error based on layman’s knowledge of the common law and the name of the doctrine, but it is an error nonetheless.
@Gene: On the contrary, I have admitted I was wrong within this forum in the past; you have not. You accuse me of your crime. You cannot point at anything in this thread where I have not been arguing the philosophical point; I said in the beginning, and I quote myself, I agree with at least the spirit of the Stand Your Ground law.
Not that I agree with it as written, which I also explicitly stated, and not that Zimmerman did anything but commit a murder, which I also explicitly stated as my belief.
You are the one that is wrong: The law means what is says in plain English, I have been in court often enough to know that, and if the ability to retreat clearly existed and was not taken is considered a reason to REJECT the reasonability of a self-defense argument, then I am right: FAILING to retreat when violently attacked carries a legal risk which I do not think should exist.
It is obvious on the face of it.
I do not believe that escalation is warranted or anybody should have the right to shoot if they “feel threatened.” That is bullshit, the only fair standard for responding with force is if an actual, unprovoked assault was executed or attempted. Under those circumstances, I believe a duty to retreat is bad law.
Geraldo knows why this kid was murdered. It was his parent’s fault.
“But I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.” – Geraldo Rivera
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin-hoodie_n_1375080.html
Guns don’t kill people. People don’t kill people. Hoodies kill people.
Jackass.
An excellent segment with Ben Jealous and Amy Goodman:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/22/naacps_ben_jealous_justice_for_trayvon
March 22, 2012
NAACP’s Ben Jealous: Justice for Trayvon Martin Begins with Killer’s Arrest, Police Chief’s Ouster
Max, responsible gun owners are punished how?
This man was TOLD by the 911 dispatcher to STAY IN HIS CAR and wait for the police. He chose to get out and confront the youth who by all reports I’ve seen was not a threat to others in what he was doing so this is NOT a case of self defense. The “Stand Your Ground” law therefor doesn’t apply and this is a case of manslaughter. I’m a gun owner and this is the type of vigilanty crap that will be used to punish RESPONSIBLE gun owners.
Tony,
You can try to weasel out of it however you like, but you simply didn’t/don’t understand the duty to retreat. Physical retreat is not required so long as you can make a reasonable case for not retreating, your conflation notwithstanding. The standard is reasonableness. And, no, you weren’t arguing a “philosophical point”. You were simply wrong. Just like you’re wrong in understanding it now. Not that I’d ever expect you to admit that based upon your past performance. That would be, in fact, one of the last things I would expect. I’d expect the Sun to turn into cream cheese before I’d expect you to ever admit you’re wrong about something. Thanks for trying to create a false dichotomy though. That was mildly entertaining.
In arguing for a moral ground, by which we actually craft and interpret laws, one person arguing for an individual right may be correct to themselves but we live in a society. That individual isn’t necessarily wrong because despite social convention they are not in line with the whole.
But that isn’t what we are saying to you about “the law”
We are arguing that your position is morally incorrect, not that you are…but your stated position. You state “retreat = running away” …responds from me “no it doesn’t.” I get that YOU think it does. But that is a non-starter for any conversation if after I provide examples you simply decide to be intellectually stubborn without support in the empirical world.
Our beliefs aren’t really up for social scrutiny but our public actions are. So what your internal matrix says only matters where it meets my social policy needs. My social policy needs in public spaces require a reasonable level of security that isn’t codified to favor the aggressive alphas who think their rules are superior to the social order. We have a term for that type of person: sociopath.
I don’t think you are such a person, fyi, I think you are passionately arguing for a moral change where ‘bullies’ don’t run the world. But to the very non-violent out there…WE’RE THE BULLIES. To them, we’re the one in our testo-fest “as my wife calls it”
See, she’s watched me change from what you describe to your ideal to whatever I am today. 35 years ago I’d have been standing in the middle of the space instantly. That’s ridiculous behavior that is indistinguishable from the conceptual bully presented in your scenarios.
In arguing for a moral ground to stand on, I’d think you would realize that since we are talking about the “spirit” of a law, morality, etc, if you want to be held free of liability, then you can’t do that while fuzzing the lines of accountability. “I don’t want to be held liable” for premeditated violence is your argument. You premeditated that your option could be violence and would be if…you wanted to get your ego rocks off on the unfortunate sap who dared pick on you that day. Yes or no?
Binary
I feel as if I’m beating up on you and don’t want to. I think your premise is not very well considered at all in terms of how your culpability will be viewed. You seem to want something from your society while not accepting you are in a society. I’m in a society too. I have developed my views along that reality. Social constructs may break down or be feeble so I’m sure what integrity I have left at my age is sound enough to figure it out. But if you’re asking the community to give you a pass for aggression because you decided you were going to teach a lesson that day, then 1. I think you have some social blinders on, 2. You stereotype opponents in binary terms and they aren’t binaries, and 3. You have some unsettled past conflicts that you seek to settle in the next match.
That third one can be a real mofo I promise you. Unsettled conflicts are the number one reason people die today, Fact. Settle them, brother Tony C. I love your spirit, your esprit d’corp is unquestioned. But please listen to your martial brothers here too. I’m not superior to you. I’m just a man. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to settling those lions inside. I tend no less to bullies today than in the past. Today they wear suits and ties and own my friends mortgages or utilities. Rarely does the street seem to be the most violent place in many lifes, their bank accounts are murdering them.
Good luck Tony. You have a strong conviction. Hope you’ll consider these words.
“I cannot rely upon what I believe as fair to be implemented in the law,”
Tony, do we both agree, not ‘having to back down to bullies and live in intimidation” is fair?
Mongol military legend Genghis Khan was a big old coward. He used retreat on a regular basis as a form of attack. Feigning retreat was one of his prime techniques. SunYi, aka SunTzu, he was a big old yellow belly nincompoop! He too…taught and believed in the art of retreating.
Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba, big old pussycat. Scared to the bones apparently, most of the style is retreat form.
I’m very glad you’re moral center is superior to mine. I’m glad you’ll be the one standing there while I retreat. I’ll be hiding under mama’s belt hoping the rain will stop.
You’re a hoot.
@Idealist: PS Tony, doesn’t your own words seem odd.
No. The blade of your arm is the outer bone of your forearm; it is very tough and relatively sharp, and if you strike with it, you are less likely to break it than when hitting with the small bones of the hand, and more likely to do serious damage. It was common terminology in my martial arts classes.
The point of those words were that in a fight, even a defensive strike can miss, hit an untrained opponent in a vulnerable spot and crush the windpipe or the carotid artery, and kill them. Even an untrained defender has a sharp bone in their arm and might swing wildly and connect with a lethal blow. The death of an assailant is not necessarily intentional.
“Martin has been swooped up this quickly, linked with names from the annals of history. “We can name names all the way from Emmett Till to Trayvon Martin,” said Hannibal Duncan, 32, who told about black friends who had been profiled repeatedly and, in one case, beaten by police. “At some point, we’ve got to find some kind of way to stop it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-killing-galvanizes-florida-community-civil-rights-groups/2012/03/21/gIQAbQslSS_story_1.html
OS
I like your reasoning. It fits into a very sophsticated method of controlling voters, which has become a science, literally, since WW 1.
Won’t say it’s exclusively Republican either.
Big O and H are playing the race card, but thank god, it is the people who are outraged, and justly so.
There is probably many such buttons to push, which you have discovered.
?????