Law, huh, What Is It Good For?
Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of Casey Anthony found not guilty in the death of her daughter. People were very upset that such a clear case of right and wrong was decided "wrongly" by a jury who heard things the average person did not and were given explicit instructions that the average person was not. People could plainly see from their living rooms what was wrong and what was right and this jury had screwed it up. This was not the first, nor the last, time that people would degree a verdict easy to read from their limited vantage point. Right now, in the same state of Florida, there is another case going on that has the attention of everyone in the nation and everyone has an opinion. On February 26, 2012 George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. There are no balanced sources on this, so I went with one that will at least be around for years to come. Trayvon Martin was a 16 year old kid who went out for a pack of Skittles and iced tea and was walking in a gated community with a community watch captain named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman called the police to say there was a suspicious young man walking around. The dispatcher listened and advised him not to get out of his truck or approach him. Zimmerman made comments about these assholes always getting away and approached the young man. Here is where the objectively known facts end until we get to Zimmerman shooting Martin at a range of two feet or less in the chest with a 9mm pistol, which killed Martin quickly as it went through his heart. Of course, not all facts are objectively known, so people have run rampant thinking of things in between. They have done this throughout history, and won't stop now. This is precisely why we have courts of law and why there have been controversial cases as long as they've been around.
When to use deadly force is one of the most hotly contested ideas in jurisprudence. America got a lot of its common law from the British Empire, which had based theirs on parts of old French law which was based on Roman interpretations of Roman Law of the Twelve Tables which in turn was inspired by old Greek law (specifically, Athenian). All of these systems allowed for justifiable homicide in self-defense, and generally in the defense of one's family and property. Of course, when one party is dead and one party is on trial, it can be hard to get to what is exactly truth. When people are inflamed with anger, almost impossible. The Zimmerman case is no exception. Trayvon Martin is dead, Zimmerman is the only other participant in the incident and testimony from eyewitnesses has been contradictory or incomplete. So, we are left with an autopsy and Zimmerman's word. Zimmerman says he did get out of his truck, to examine exactly where he was, and did approach Martin. He says during the course of asking him his business and where he was going, he thought Martin was up to no good and he was suspicious since they had a lot of break-ins recently. Zimmerman claims Martin got physically aggressive with him so Zimmerman drew down and shot him. Again, we'll never know for 100% certain what happened, so all we can go on are the limited physical evidence and Zimmerman's testimony. Luckily, this is why we have trials, to sort out things like intent, physical evidence and to give each side a fair share of time to argue what happened or did not happen.
One of the defining cases in this area of American law came in 1770 in the town of Boston. British soldiers had been stationed there to enforce laws, protect customs houses and other official duties. One night, as they often did, a crowd gathered to taunt them. At first, it started with insults and snowballs, but then the matter escalated with clubs and rocks. One soldier dropped his weapon and it happened to hit someone. People threw more stuff and the soldiers fired into the crowd, killing 5. The locals all were sure that the Boston Massacre had been the intentional, deliberate act of killing citizens who were protesting unfair taxes. The soldiers were arrested and charged, with everyone sure the trial was just a formality. One lawyer actually ventured to take the case, a man by the name of John Adams. He managed, without CSI, to gather evidence that the troops had been egged on and verbally incited by the crowd to fire and the captain never gave the order to fire (as he was standing in front of them). There was never a doubt the soldiers did fire, but the question came as to why and how things got that way. Adams was able to show there was reasonable doubt about who actually ordered what and when and where everyone was. Here, the facts looked clear to everyone, but having an actual trial and investigation actually helped get to the truth. It also helped to settle the matters of law the come up in cases like these. But that often means that the person whom the public think should be hanged can get off.
Back to the Zimmerman case, there are a lot of problems here, for both sides. One, there's a dead kid. Not some huge criminal, not some dastardly mastermind, but a 5'11" 158 lb kid with some THC in his system. No weapon, no criminal record and no other evidence of intended criminal action that night. Zimmerman said the kid was being suspicious and there had been break-ins in the neighborhood. The latter is true, the second is up for debate. However, what is not really up for debate is what citizen Zimmerman could do about it. Under the Terry v. Ohio ruling, a police officer can stop someone on suspicion to ask them questions. There can even be a search if there are exigent circumstances (a legal phrase meaning, a really good reason). Key word is police officer, not guy with the neighborhood watch who happens to be packing heat. Martin was under no obligation to do a thing this guy said and Zimmerman was under no authority to do anything about it. If Zimmerman started to ask Martin what he was doing there, and Martin said "Blow me", this would have been legal. However, Zimmerman claims that Martin not only did not comply, but also physically attacked him.
Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, this means Zimmerman had no "duty to retreat" but could stand there, draw his weapon and fire. In most states, if you're out in public and things start getting physical, participants have what is called a Duty to Retreat, which means if there's a way to pull yourself out of the situation. This doesn't apply if you're at home or a few other places. Basically, anywhere to where you would retreat, you don't have to retreat. This was a street corner in a housing development, the epitome of "public space". Again, Zimmerman was asked to stay in his truck. The 911 dispatcher could not order him with any weight of law. One of the parts of the Stand Your Ground law is that the shooter could not have instigated or elevated the threat level of confrontation. That is, if he pulls a fist and you pull a gun, that's escalation. If you threaten with your weapon, that's brandishing. If you do anything other than a fatal shot (like say fire in the air) that's ALSO a crime. It's assumed that if you're drawing a firearm, you're going to kill with it since the situation must be that severe. Of course, when there is a shooting, an investigation is done, including interrogation of the suspect. That would be the guy with the gun. In this case, there is no doubt there was a homicide (a person was killed by non-natural means), but there is a question of it was murder (the unlawful termination of a person's life). The police screwed this up at the beginning. Forensic evidence should have been taken, Zimmerman should have been examined, documented and questioned more closely and he shouldn't have been let go like nothing happened.
Which is how this gets fucked at trial. The state's attorney went for a charge of murder in the second degree, which in Florida means the killer committed "an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." Basically, they have to prove he wanted to kill Trayon Martin (this is often called intent). This will be really hard to prove. Manslaughter, the accidental death of person without the above depraved mind, carries a lighter sentence but would be much harder to prove. The prosecutor has to prove past a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman may not have planned the death of Trayvon Martin, but did so at the first opportunity because he doesn't care about people or life. Both sides will argue facts and law as both are in pretty good contest here. As much as we might look on Zimmerman as a guy who was playing cop and wanting to shoot someone, this is speculation. While his actions during this have not been of the greatest moral character, that is not directly on trial. What is on trial is if Zimmerman killed a kid for walking down the wrong street with the wrong guy on it or if Zimmerman was defending himself against a kid with a few inches on (Zimmerman, according to records, is 5'8" and about 200 lbs) who started beating on him. We don't know. This is why we have trials, this is why we have lawyers and generally why Nancy Grace should shut the hell up.
Now, arguing the court system is rigged and thus unable to produce a good verdict, that's a whole other can of worms.
So it is written, so do I see it.
When to use deadly force is one of the most hotly contested ideas in jurisprudence. America got a lot of its common law from the British Empire, which had based theirs on parts of old French law which was based on Roman interpretations of Roman Law of the Twelve Tables which in turn was inspired by old Greek law (specifically, Athenian). All of these systems allowed for justifiable homicide in self-defense, and generally in the defense of one's family and property. Of course, when one party is dead and one party is on trial, it can be hard to get to what is exactly truth. When people are inflamed with anger, almost impossible. The Zimmerman case is no exception. Trayvon Martin is dead, Zimmerman is the only other participant in the incident and testimony from eyewitnesses has been contradictory or incomplete. So, we are left with an autopsy and Zimmerman's word. Zimmerman says he did get out of his truck, to examine exactly where he was, and did approach Martin. He says during the course of asking him his business and where he was going, he thought Martin was up to no good and he was suspicious since they had a lot of break-ins recently. Zimmerman claims Martin got physically aggressive with him so Zimmerman drew down and shot him. Again, we'll never know for 100% certain what happened, so all we can go on are the limited physical evidence and Zimmerman's testimony. Luckily, this is why we have trials, to sort out things like intent, physical evidence and to give each side a fair share of time to argue what happened or did not happen.
One of the defining cases in this area of American law came in 1770 in the town of Boston. British soldiers had been stationed there to enforce laws, protect customs houses and other official duties. One night, as they often did, a crowd gathered to taunt them. At first, it started with insults and snowballs, but then the matter escalated with clubs and rocks. One soldier dropped his weapon and it happened to hit someone. People threw more stuff and the soldiers fired into the crowd, killing 5. The locals all were sure that the Boston Massacre had been the intentional, deliberate act of killing citizens who were protesting unfair taxes. The soldiers were arrested and charged, with everyone sure the trial was just a formality. One lawyer actually ventured to take the case, a man by the name of John Adams. He managed, without CSI, to gather evidence that the troops had been egged on and verbally incited by the crowd to fire and the captain never gave the order to fire (as he was standing in front of them). There was never a doubt the soldiers did fire, but the question came as to why and how things got that way. Adams was able to show there was reasonable doubt about who actually ordered what and when and where everyone was. Here, the facts looked clear to everyone, but having an actual trial and investigation actually helped get to the truth. It also helped to settle the matters of law the come up in cases like these. But that often means that the person whom the public think should be hanged can get off.
Back to the Zimmerman case, there are a lot of problems here, for both sides. One, there's a dead kid. Not some huge criminal, not some dastardly mastermind, but a 5'11" 158 lb kid with some THC in his system. No weapon, no criminal record and no other evidence of intended criminal action that night. Zimmerman said the kid was being suspicious and there had been break-ins in the neighborhood. The latter is true, the second is up for debate. However, what is not really up for debate is what citizen Zimmerman could do about it. Under the Terry v. Ohio ruling, a police officer can stop someone on suspicion to ask them questions. There can even be a search if there are exigent circumstances (a legal phrase meaning, a really good reason). Key word is police officer, not guy with the neighborhood watch who happens to be packing heat. Martin was under no obligation to do a thing this guy said and Zimmerman was under no authority to do anything about it. If Zimmerman started to ask Martin what he was doing there, and Martin said "Blow me", this would have been legal. However, Zimmerman claims that Martin not only did not comply, but also physically attacked him.
Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, this means Zimmerman had no "duty to retreat" but could stand there, draw his weapon and fire. In most states, if you're out in public and things start getting physical, participants have what is called a Duty to Retreat, which means if there's a way to pull yourself out of the situation. This doesn't apply if you're at home or a few other places. Basically, anywhere to where you would retreat, you don't have to retreat. This was a street corner in a housing development, the epitome of "public space". Again, Zimmerman was asked to stay in his truck. The 911 dispatcher could not order him with any weight of law. One of the parts of the Stand Your Ground law is that the shooter could not have instigated or elevated the threat level of confrontation. That is, if he pulls a fist and you pull a gun, that's escalation. If you threaten with your weapon, that's brandishing. If you do anything other than a fatal shot (like say fire in the air) that's ALSO a crime. It's assumed that if you're drawing a firearm, you're going to kill with it since the situation must be that severe. Of course, when there is a shooting, an investigation is done, including interrogation of the suspect. That would be the guy with the gun. In this case, there is no doubt there was a homicide (a person was killed by non-natural means), but there is a question of it was murder (the unlawful termination of a person's life). The police screwed this up at the beginning. Forensic evidence should have been taken, Zimmerman should have been examined, documented and questioned more closely and he shouldn't have been let go like nothing happened.
Which is how this gets fucked at trial. The state's attorney went for a charge of murder in the second degree, which in Florida means the killer committed "an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." Basically, they have to prove he wanted to kill Trayon Martin (this is often called intent). This will be really hard to prove. Manslaughter, the accidental death of person without the above depraved mind, carries a lighter sentence but would be much harder to prove. The prosecutor has to prove past a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman may not have planned the death of Trayvon Martin, but did so at the first opportunity because he doesn't care about people or life. Both sides will argue facts and law as both are in pretty good contest here. As much as we might look on Zimmerman as a guy who was playing cop and wanting to shoot someone, this is speculation. While his actions during this have not been of the greatest moral character, that is not directly on trial. What is on trial is if Zimmerman killed a kid for walking down the wrong street with the wrong guy on it or if Zimmerman was defending himself against a kid with a few inches on (Zimmerman, according to records, is 5'8" and about 200 lbs) who started beating on him. We don't know. This is why we have trials, this is why we have lawyers and generally why Nancy Grace should shut the hell up.
Now, arguing the court system is rigged and thus unable to produce a good verdict, that's a whole other can of worms.
So it is written, so do I see it.