Post Zimmerman predictions

[CitizenBBN]

Since we still have 3-4 threads on the front page not about the trial, how about one more? ;)

NAACP has already said they'll pursue a civil rights case with the Dept of Justice, and they will work to remove "Stand your ground" laws in every state and eliminate "racial profiling". The idea of "stand your ground" somehow being racist actually offends me on grounds of racism (minorities dont' have a right to defend themselves in these gang infested nightmares they often live in?), but I'll save that part for a later time.

But back to the topic, what will the response be?

Will we see violence in response, in Florida or elsewhere?

Will Obama pursue a civil rights case against Zimmerman? If so or not, what will the consequences be politically?

Will Zimmerman and his family need to be in protective custody for the foreseeable future?

[dethbylt]

Since we still have 3-4 threads on the front page not about the trial, how about one more? ;)

NAACP has already said they'll pursue a civil rights case with the Dept of Justice, and they will work to remove "Stand your ground" laws in every state and eliminate "racial profiling". The idea of "stand your ground" somehow being racist actually offends me on grounds of racism (minorities dont' have a right to defend themselves in these gang infested nightmares they often live in?), but I'll save that part for a later time.

But back to the topic, what will the response be?

Will we see violence in response, in Florida or elsewhere?

Will Obama pursue a civil rights case against Zimmerman? If so or not, what will the consequences be politically?

Will Zimmerman and his family need to be in protective custody for the foreseeable future?

I will bite: how the hell is a law designed to legalize use of force in self defense racially inequitable?

Also, i can see multiple lawsuits based on the racial aspects of the case. I truly believe that race played no part in this incident, but it will in the subsequent civil cases.

[Darrell KSR]

Yes.

(EDIT--Wow, I began the post, and then was temporarily distracted, and didn't finish. My apologies).

Wasn't going to be much anyway. Just that I didn't think there'd be as big of a reaction as some thought. Yes, I think there will be a lot of wailing and talking, but in the end, not much. I was hoping we wouldn't see Rodney King riots, and didn't think we would.

Wrongful death suit? Maybe. But really, where's the evidence?

[CitizenBBN]

Beats me.

OK I get the civil rights case (I don't think it's justified here but I 'get it'), but their view that not having to retreat when physically threatened as a racist law is absurd and frankly insulting to minorities. By and large minorities are exposed to more threat of bodily harm than non-minorities, and this law is about people being able to defend themselves. Of course the NAACP is allied with groups who don't want any of those minorities armed to defend themselves, so in that way it's consistent.

lol Darrell. About covers it.

[Darrell KSR]

Just bumped back to the top with my apology for the late edit ;).

[BigBlueBrock]

Beats me.

OK I get the civil rights case (I don't think it's justified here but I 'get it'), but their view that not having to retreat when physically threatened as a racist law is absurd and frankly insulting to minorities. By and large minorities are exposed to more threat of bodily harm than non-minorities, and this law is about people being able to defend themselves. Of course the NAACP is allied with groups who don't want any of those minorities armed to defend themselves, so in that way it's consistent.

lol Darrell. About covers it.

Wasn't the stand your ground law intended to benefit rape victims in the first place? So they couldn't be prosecuted if they seriously injured or killed their attacker? I think I read that somewhere, but don't know if it's accurate.

[CitizenBBN]

Just bumped back to the top with my apology for the late edit ;).

If we can do that then I meant to predict not guilty on the other thread. :D


Wasn't the stand your ground law intended to benefit rape victims in the first place? So they couldn't be prosecuted if they seriously injured or killed their attacker? I think I read that somewhere, but don't know if it's accurate.

No you're not wrong, "stand your ground" has strong benefits for women in general.

It can impact a rape case b/c in some states like Kentucky the use of deadly force in self defense is justified to defend from rape along with the threat of great bodily harm. The Ky statutes specifically say you can use deadly force to prevent a rape of yourself or another. To the extent "stand your ground" is really just "don't have to run" and/or "can use deadly force to defend yourself" it would impact the ability to defend from a rape in those states that include rape as a justified threat.

Where it really comes up is in domestic violence cases. Without a right to self defense a woman can be charged with murder/manslaughter b/c she shot someone trying to or in the act of beating her b/c she didn't run from her home to a neighbor or even b/c she didn't leave knowing he was drunk and was a threat to beat her that night. Women were routinely charged with crimes for killing their abuser/attacker using the same arguments the prosecution used in Zimmerman, things like "rape isn't killing you so you didn't have a right to kill him" or "you just had bruises and a bloody nose, you weren't in threat of dying".

That sounds different when it's an abused woman, but they're the same arguments the prosecution used on Zimmerman to say basically just getting your butt kicked doesn't justify shooting someone in self defense. It was the those positions that "stand your ground" is all about eliminating, but while once in a blue moon it may be a crazy situation like Zimmerman/Martin, during the time the trial was going on there were 1,000s of real world cases like domestic violence and rape and other crimes where that law was vital to protecting people.

it was commonplace for women to be expected by some prosecutors to hide in bathrooms or flee the home. It was "their fault" for causing the confrontation with the drunk loser by not leaving the scene, sometimes just for coming home when they knew he was dangerous and ended up killing him in a fight. Doesn't sound quite right when it's asked of a battered woman, does it?

these laws turned the tide against what had become an insanely "pro criminal" view, where self defense was all but gone as an option. Feminist organizations fought for them and should be speaking up against the NAACP if they had any spines at all.

[UKHistory]

While I lean more towards a guilty of manslaughter decision, I have grave concerns over a civil rights violation or a civil wrongful death suit.

From a legal standpoint I understand that it is different, but to me it is double jeopardy to find a person not guilty in a criminal investigation and the to take them to civil court for what is practically speaking the same offense.

At this point Zimmerman has been acquitted. To me this is over. Thankful the decision came on the weekend on a Saturday night. There is far less chance of rioting now.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW it also is important in cases where a baby sitter defended from an intruder, people who were being charged with murder for shooting the bad guy who was holding up the store they were in at gunpoint, that sort of thing. The "don't hurt him, he's just misunderstood" crowd had gotten totally out of control and too many law abiding people were being charged with murder for shooting the violent criminal who was trying to harm someone or steal from them.

these laws were passed so overwhelmingly for a reason. They have had massive bipartisan support b/c people are sick of crime and criminals.

It's not even relevant in this case as "stand your ground" had nothing to do with the events leading up to the actual fight, and once that started it seems to be agreed Martin was on Zimmerman and there was no ability to retreat even if he'd had the requirement to do so. Even in a state without "stand your ground" he'd likely be found just as not guilty b/c retreat wasn't an issue. Some states do still seem to adhere to the idea that just getting beat up doesn't justify using deadly force, he'd be in trouble there, but that's not really "stand your ground."

Seeing it as racist to have a right to shoot a bad guy threatening you rather than run away and hoping you get away is IMO the height of racism b/c it presumes that the bad guys are disproportionately black. The view of the NAACP is deeply troubling to me in the assumptions they've made about who this law hurts and helps.

[BigBlueBrock]

CBBN, it's interesting that you bring up domestic abuse cases because while we were all focused on Zimmerman, this absurdity and glaring injustice happened: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

Now the problem with this is more the ridiculous mandatory minimum laws for firearm usage in Florida (which I believe are inherently racist, not to mention capricious, cruel, and unusual), but still. I think it's an interesting parallel.

[CitizenBBN]

CBBN, it's interesting that you bring up domestic abuse cases because while we were all focused on Zimmerman, this absurdity and glaring injustice happened: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

Now the problem with this is more the ridiculous mandatory minimum laws for firearm usage in Florida (which I believe are inherently racist, not to mention capricious, cruel, and unusual), but still. I think it's an interesting parallel.

It's exactly why groups like the NAACP need to be fighting FOR gun rights and self defense, not against them IMO. Black women in particular face hugely disproportionate levels of violence in their lives as a function of both economics and gender.

Also a case against mandatory sentencing laws and overreach by the legislature. As I posted elsewhere, the law is really a set of rules that a jury and judge must then apply to a given situation where a legislature cannot see every possible circumstance. It takes a certain flexibility to apply them to every bizarre case that comes along.

I imagine (the story didn't say) she was convicted of aggravated assault b/c she fired into a wall of a room where there were children, so she was convicted not of firing the gun but of firing it at someone. Ideally a judge could then say "but it wasn't with intent to harm anyone and she's not a criminal who will go out and do it again" and reduce the sentence or eliminate it.

but yes the stand your ground law is vital in these cases b/c women who are far more obviously threatened are convicted every day for defending themselves in states where they don't have those protections. FWIW so are men, b/c there's a lot more abuse by women on men than anyone cares to admit.