Why do you imply that this was "willy nilly"? The jury didn't seem to have evidence to prove such beyond doubt. Are you aware of something they aren't?
If the shooting is done in self-defense against an imminent threat of death and/or gross bodily harm, then such shooting can be justified. Whether the person in such a situation is a "good guy" is another matter.
Would the legal issues involved have been any different had it been a similar situation involving, say, two Asian-American women instead of a Hispanic man and a Black man?
I am still amazed at how following someone around, harassing them then engaging them in a confrontation counts as "self-defense", unless "attacking someone and suddenly starting ti lose" is a new definition in US law I have previously not heard of.
Simple fact is that he was followed and targetted for being a young black kid in a hoodie. Using this as justification for CCW shows....well ToS prevents me from stating my actual beliefs, but it is yet another weak attempt at hijacking a tragedy for political agenda.
If this is "being a good guy" then sign me up for the opposition
Guilty or not, none of this would've happened if Zimmerman had done as he was told by the police. He isn't a hero or a good guy, he's a murderer who shouldn't have been armed in the first place.
It was not self-defense. I know it's hard for some people to understand but think of it this way. If you are told not to do something but you do and there is a danger of bodily harm, you are putting yourself into a situation that you shouldn't. Self-defense would be not putting yourself into the situation in the first place. Nobody(who wasn't a professional zoo keeper) would think it logical to get inside a lion cage at the zoo and then shoot the lion if he came for you. No, you wouldn't get in the cage in the first place because it's stupid. He wasn't a zoo keeper, he was a wannabe that turned into a vigilante.
Sure, if your baby fell into the area where they keep the animals, you might consider jumping in after them, but a wise parent wouldn't let them fall in in the first place.
Step 1. Conceal a gun
Step 2. Stalk young African American
Step 3. Start a fight with young African American
Step 4. Get your ass kicked
Step 5. Use gun
I don't know if it was murder. I can even see an argument that, ocne the fighting started, he was losing the battle and felt the need to protect himself.
But to me the issue is, the police told him to back off and he didn't. If he had backed off, this confrontation never would have happened. He bears some responsibility for what ensued due to this fact alone IMO. I am not happy with the idea of neighborhood watch people carrying guns either. And I am not anti-gun.
I don't know, legally, if you can call it manslaughter or murder. No one else will ever know exactly what happened. But SOMETHING is very wrong when one can ignore the police, a person ends up dead, and he doesn't bear any ressponsibility for causing it. Problem is, if it wasn't manslaughter, I don't know what sort of law would apply.
Any of us here with SD training in our MA training knows you avoid confrontation whenever you can. Put yourself in a position where you can avoid fighting whenever possible.
I am not sure how much the media played up the racial issues. Zimmerman isn't white. And one media outlet did cut the police tape to make it sound more racial than it was. I think THEY should face some sort of charges for inciting society by doing this BTW.
But no one won. Not Martin's family, not Zimmerman. He is going to have a miserable life because of this (and he may very well deserve to). Society certainly didn't win.
Hypothetically, let's pretend that Martin wrestled the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him. Is there any reason that he couldn't use the Stand Your Ground law as well? Seems like he had a greater claim to self defense.
So the kid was going to fight the first person he came across? Or maybe he felt threatened by someone following him and felt the need to protect himself (rightly or wrongly)?
The fight was a direct result of Zimmerman's actions. I'm no lawyer, but when a person's actions lead directly to the death of an innocent, isn't that an unlawful killing?
If some weird guy started following me in a car and then on foot, I would pretty much be expecting to be attacked and/or kidnapped.
There is absolutely no way what zimmerman did can be called self defence, he chose (after being told NOT to by a police dispatcher) to follow this person.
Lets look at this from another perspective, if you was being followed by some weirdo by car and then on foot, what would you do? most people have a 'fight or flight' response, they way I see it, even if Martin started the fight, he had every right to, given Zimmermans weird and threatening behavior.
Zimmerman took it upon himself to be a vigilante with a tragic outcome, his actions directly resulted in a loss of life when it could have been avoided, and for that he should have been punished.
It's pretty sick some people are calling this a 'win' for the 'good guys'.
Erm, Zimmerman had the option not to cause a confrontation AT ALL. He did not need to follow Martin in his car and then on foot. It wasnt his job, and he was not in danger.
He CHOOSE to put himself in that situation, he STALKED somebody and then KILLED them. Its pretty clear cut.
Yeah, I think this why I feel like the SYG laws are unworkable. It encourages confrontations to escalate, because it provides everyone within a conflict the excuse of saying "well, I was fearing for my life." I've heard the argument that it's especially useful for women's self defense, but that seems dubious to me given, well:
well there is always the talk of the adrenal decay here so maybe that was the case. What was interesting was that they didn't show the actual pictures of Martin. They acted the entire time like he was this sweet little boy and the photos were held until whoever it was let them out of him holding guns, with money and gold chains (not sure about the money part, just sort of goes with the typical thug wannabe pictures).
At 17 he could have been in many fights and could have much experience with that sort of thing. Zimmerman's training IMO really means nothing, even many here would likely tell you that. A few months of training means little. I'm going on I think around 5-6 months of combat hapkido... could I use a wrist lock or other joint lock in certain situations? Sure, but would I likely choose that over punching that I do a whole lot more? Probably not. Maybe with the ground stuff it's easier learned within a shorter time.