CitizenBBN
07-13-2013, 01:09 PM
I see a fairly simple choice in which of two public policies we want for our nation based on this case, and moreover based on the assumptions having to be made in this case.
Those who think Zimmerman is innocent by reason of self defense see the physical fight instigator as the responsible party, and presumes Martin threw the first punch. Let's accept that is accurate for now for policy reasons.
Those who think Zimmerman is guilty of something see Zimmerman confronting Martin as the key mistake that led to a death, and seems to presume that Zimmerman needed to dial 911 as he did and then keep his butt in the truck and let the police handle it. I think that's a fair one sentence summary.
With the assumptions entered, what that means is we have two competing public policies how we want the legal assumptions to work:
1) Zimmerman had a right to be there as much as Martin, had a right to confront him verbally and ask about what he was doing, and it was up to Martin to not turn it to a physical fight and if necessary wait for the police to clear things up or at a minimum to leave the scene without engaging in a fight.
2) Zimmerman caused the problem by confronting someone he thought was acting suspiciously in his neighborhood, so people who see such things should always call the police and take no aggressive actions themselves, even just talking to the person.
Here's my problem with the 2nd position: Do we want to grant a potential criminal sneaking around in a neighborhood the presumption that any non-officer that confronts him is the instigator, and if a death occurs the person who decided to act to protect his neighborhood is guilty of manslaughter for having taken the action of even just trying to talk to the person?
it grants a huge protection to the potentially guilty, and IMO goes down the same mistaken path as the "must retreat" laws of the 70s and 80s that required potential victims to flee their own homes if necessary rather than defend themselves. The Castle Doctrine began reversing that thinking, and it now seems accepted that in your home you don't have to do it, but did Zimmerman have an effective "do not engage" requirement in his own neighborhood upon seeing possible criminal activity?
That's what that position says, and what it does is protect the criminal. Not as obviously as when people sitting in their living room were charged with murder for shooting an intruder, but it operates in the same manner and thinking, that the average American citizen not only has no right to take action on their own to prevent crime but that they have a positive legal requirement to NOT act.
Martin didnt' have to make it a fight, there's no evidence Zimmerman laid a hand on him or otherwise started a struggle. Yes it's true Zimmerman could have started the physical part, we have no witnesses, but based on the chance that it COULD have happened that way do we just say "anyone who gets out of their car and confronts someone is assumed to be committing a reckless act"? b/c that's what that view does, presume that confronting someone you think may be engaging in criminal activity is reckless, and puts you more at risk of the law than the suspected person.
If I leave my office one night and see someone snooping around the house across the street I'm being reckless by walking over and asking what he's doing there? Maybe I am, I imagine I'd think hard against such an act, but would I be legally acting recklessly by definition to do so?
Castle doctrine covers only you in your own home, not even you as a guest in someone else's home in most states, and the reason is b/c as a 3rd party you may not know the facts as well, which means more risk of a misunderstanding of the situation leading to harm. that's the issue here. Had Zimmerman been standing in his home this is a non-issue. What about him on his front porch? Now we extend past his house and yard to his neighborhood, do things change that much?
Maybe they do fwiw, there are good reasons why the law treats acts perpetrated on you or your property different from you being a 3rd party to an act, but this situation begs to me the question of once we leave our property is there an effectively built in retreat requirement?
Just curious how everyone sees this fitting their idea of how people should behave in these situations generally, and what the outcome of that being done at a societal level will be.
Those who think Zimmerman is innocent by reason of self defense see the physical fight instigator as the responsible party, and presumes Martin threw the first punch. Let's accept that is accurate for now for policy reasons.
Those who think Zimmerman is guilty of something see Zimmerman confronting Martin as the key mistake that led to a death, and seems to presume that Zimmerman needed to dial 911 as he did and then keep his butt in the truck and let the police handle it. I think that's a fair one sentence summary.
With the assumptions entered, what that means is we have two competing public policies how we want the legal assumptions to work:
1) Zimmerman had a right to be there as much as Martin, had a right to confront him verbally and ask about what he was doing, and it was up to Martin to not turn it to a physical fight and if necessary wait for the police to clear things up or at a minimum to leave the scene without engaging in a fight.
2) Zimmerman caused the problem by confronting someone he thought was acting suspiciously in his neighborhood, so people who see such things should always call the police and take no aggressive actions themselves, even just talking to the person.
Here's my problem with the 2nd position: Do we want to grant a potential criminal sneaking around in a neighborhood the presumption that any non-officer that confronts him is the instigator, and if a death occurs the person who decided to act to protect his neighborhood is guilty of manslaughter for having taken the action of even just trying to talk to the person?
it grants a huge protection to the potentially guilty, and IMO goes down the same mistaken path as the "must retreat" laws of the 70s and 80s that required potential victims to flee their own homes if necessary rather than defend themselves. The Castle Doctrine began reversing that thinking, and it now seems accepted that in your home you don't have to do it, but did Zimmerman have an effective "do not engage" requirement in his own neighborhood upon seeing possible criminal activity?
That's what that position says, and what it does is protect the criminal. Not as obviously as when people sitting in their living room were charged with murder for shooting an intruder, but it operates in the same manner and thinking, that the average American citizen not only has no right to take action on their own to prevent crime but that they have a positive legal requirement to NOT act.
Martin didnt' have to make it a fight, there's no evidence Zimmerman laid a hand on him or otherwise started a struggle. Yes it's true Zimmerman could have started the physical part, we have no witnesses, but based on the chance that it COULD have happened that way do we just say "anyone who gets out of their car and confronts someone is assumed to be committing a reckless act"? b/c that's what that view does, presume that confronting someone you think may be engaging in criminal activity is reckless, and puts you more at risk of the law than the suspected person.
If I leave my office one night and see someone snooping around the house across the street I'm being reckless by walking over and asking what he's doing there? Maybe I am, I imagine I'd think hard against such an act, but would I be legally acting recklessly by definition to do so?
Castle doctrine covers only you in your own home, not even you as a guest in someone else's home in most states, and the reason is b/c as a 3rd party you may not know the facts as well, which means more risk of a misunderstanding of the situation leading to harm. that's the issue here. Had Zimmerman been standing in his home this is a non-issue. What about him on his front porch? Now we extend past his house and yard to his neighborhood, do things change that much?
Maybe they do fwiw, there are good reasons why the law treats acts perpetrated on you or your property different from you being a 3rd party to an act, but this situation begs to me the question of once we leave our property is there an effectively built in retreat requirement?
Just curious how everyone sees this fitting their idea of how people should behave in these situations generally, and what the outcome of that being done at a societal level will be.