I said 'overtones' and I was attempting to answer your question about why this might have become a story of national interest.

If you were actually just making an oblique approach to see if you could draw some people out into an argument about racism then count me out.

Sassenach wrote:A friend of mine once staggered out of a pub the worse for drink and climbed straight into the back of somebody's car, thinking it was a taxi. It was pretty funny at the time. Had the Florida legislation been in force here then in theory that would have been perfectly legal grounds or the owner of the car to 'stand his ground' and shoot Andy dead. He would after all have been faced with a drunk making a forced entry to his 'dwelling' and it wouldn't have been all that unreasonable to argue that he felt he had reason to believe that his person was endangered.

Well, not really. Did Andy just open the back door of the car and sit down in it or did he open the back door and say this is a stick up or get out of the car or I kill you.

The key here is that not only does he have to reasonably believe there is an unlawful and forciable entry/act but there has to be a fear of death or great bodily harm. Typically, the fear has to be a reasonable fear as well.

This fear of death or great bodily harm is absent from Andy's drunken escapde. Therefore, if the car owner had turned around an shot Andy, he would not be covered by the Stand Your Ground law.

Further, the same problem is extent in Ricky's hypothetical. A stranger given the key goes to the wrong house getting shot through the door. Where is the fear of death or great bodily harm? It's not there, so I would argue the law would not cover the act.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

I don't see anything there which invalidates my hypothetical. There's an automatic presumption that any unlawful or forced entry to an occupied vehicle engenders a reasonable fear of imminent peril. This is precisely the wording of the legislation. In my example Andy entered an occupied vehicle without the owner's permission, which constitutes an unlawful entry.

Sassenach wrote:I said 'overtones' and I was attempting to answer your question about why this might have become a story of national interest.

If you were actually just making an oblique approach to see if you could draw some people out into an argument about racism then count me out.

No I was not making a oblique approach. This death is no different then ones that happen any day in any major metropolitan area. Another example, there was a guy from New York somewhere (Buffalo I think) that had just graduated Temple University in Philadelphia that was beat to death this past Janaury. The story is that he was standing next to a cab talking to the cabbie when the car behind, with 4 guys in it, honked it's horn. The Temple grad made some kind of comment to the car. 3 of the 4 guys got out and proceeded to beat him to death. The slammed his head on the stone steps on the building they were in front of. Did this make national news? International news?

You want vigilante and innocent victim? Here is another story out of Philadelphia from last year. A young girl got raped. The neighbors got together and beat the guy they thought did it to death. Only problem was he wasn't the guy who did it. Why didn't this story make national or international news?

Sassenach wrote:I don't see anything there which invalidates my hypothetical. There's an automatic presumption that any unlawful or forced entry to an occupied vehicle engenders a reasonable fear of imminent peril. This is precisely the wording of the legislation. In my example Andy entered an occupied vehicle without the owner's permission, which constitutes an unlawful entry.

Except that you are making the same mistake as before. It is not unlawful or forced entry. It is unlawful and forcible entry. Did Andy forcibly enter the vehicle? Doesn't sound like it. Therefore, the fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury is absent.

So then I ask those who want to string Zimmerman up what he should have done?

I read the police report on the Martin/Zimmerman incident. It says that Zimmerman claims he was on the ground with Martin standing on top of him beating him. He called for help but nobody came to help. The police report says Zimmerman's back was wet (damp ground), he had blood on the back of his head and cuts and bruises on the front of his face.

So the question becomes, what should Zimmerman have done. Yes we can all agree that it was probably a mistake for him to follow and confront. However, once he did and he ended up on the ground getting the snot kicked out of him, because I think we can agree blood on the back of the head and multiple laceration and bruises on the face counts, with no one coming to help him, what action should Zimmerman have taken?

Except that you are making the same mistake as before. It is not unlawful or forced entry. It is unlawful and forcible entry. Did Andy forcibly enter the vehicle? Doesn't sound like it. Therefore, the fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury is absent.

I guess that's going to depend on your interpretation of 'forcible'. If an intruder enters a property through an unlocked front door is that forcible ? Probably not. Would that intrusion give an automatic right for the homeowner to stand their ground ? Almost certainly.

I picked a somewhat silly example of course, but nevertheless I suspect that the police would find it very difficult to prosecute given the way this law has been drafted. In theory a forcible entry doesn't even need to have been made, the owner merely has to have 'reason to believe' that it's about to happen. So a drunk man staggers across the street and tries to pull your rear door open, is that reason to believe he's about to forcibly enter your car ? It would be difficult for the police to prove otherwise, so it amounts to the same thing.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Perhaps because the police did nothing much about it for weeks, and the family felt the need to appeal for justice elsewhere.

So around the same day there was an incident in Philadelphia where a young black man walked into a corner store and allegedly attempted to rob it was shot by the Hispanic clerk. Cops haven't done anything. However, this isn't a national story.

Hmm. Was there perhaps some direct evidence of a robbery attempt (like CCTV, witnesses to the [i]whole[i] incident)? Do you have a link to the story?

danivon wrote:...a young black male who looks pretty innocent...

Who said he looks pretty innocent. Other then the years old picture the media is showing, have you seen another other pictures of him?

By 'looks', I didn't mean in physical appearance. I mean that he was not armed, is not suspected of any recent crimes - particularly not on that night up to the point he and Zimmerman met - and despite not being a 100% perfect kid all his life (who was?),

But my question still stands. Even if the police didn't investigate properly or any of the other things you claim, why is it of any interest beyond the local news? I can pick any one of hundred similar incidents in any place around the country/world if I searched local news websites. What makes this one a national story?

It's a combination of things. We can ask the same of all kinds of stories, such as why one missing kid brings out a massive response while other missing kids are just a footnote.

Why is it that you are dumbfounded by this one?

Archduke Russell John wrote:So then I ask those who want to string Zimmerman up what he should have done?

I don't subscribe to capital punishment. I don't want to 'string him up'. He should have been arrested, and that way a proper investigation could have taken place at the time. If it turnsout that his self defence argument is undermined by his actions, then he should be charged with at least manslaughter, tried accordingly. If found guilty, a prison term will suffice.

But what shoud he have done? It's pretty simple - taken the advice of the police.

I read the police report on the Martin/Zimmerman incident. It says that Zimmerman claims he was on the ground with Martin standing on top of him beating him. He called for help but nobody came to help. The police report says Zimmerman's back was wet (damp ground), he had blood on the back of his head and cuts and bruises on the front of his face.

Hmm. All this demonstrates really is that an altercation took place and at some point in it Zimmerman looked to be losing. But it doesn't show either way how the altercation started. Without evidence, we don't know who struck the first blows or made the first move. All we do know is that Zimmerman was armed, followed Martin and confronted him somehow.

So the question becomes, what should Zimmerman have done. Yes we can all agree that it was probably a mistake for him to follow and confront. However, once he did and he ended up on the ground getting the snot kicked out of him, because I think we can agree blood on the back of the head and multiple laceration and bruises on the face counts, with no one coming to help him, what action should Zimmerman have taken?

If he started the fight and ended up losing, does that mean he can claim 'self defence' when he evens up the odds using a gun? I don't think I can answer the question without more information, to be honest.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I said 'overtones' and I was attempting to answer your question about why this might have become a story of national interest.

If you were actually just making an oblique approach to see if you could draw some people out into an argument about racism then count me out.

No I was not making a oblique approach. This death is no different then ones that happen any day in any major metropolitan area. Another example, there was a guy from New York somewhere (Buffalo I think) that had just graduated Temple University in Philadelphia that was beat to death this past Janaury. The story is that he was standing next to a cab talking to the cabbie when the car behind, with 4 guys in it, honked it's horn. The Temple grad made some kind of comment to the car. 3 of the 4 guys got out and proceeded to beat him to death. The slammed his head on the stone steps on the building they were in front of. Did this make national news? International news?

You want vigilante and innocent victim? Here is another story out of Philadelphia from last year. A young girl got raped. The neighbors got together and beat the guy they thought did it to death. Only problem was he wasn't the guy who did it. Why didn't this story make national or international news?

Did the police arrest the 4 guys who beat the Temple grad or the neighbors who beat the wrong guy?

Again, we can't really compare ARJ's examples because there isn't enough to say they are really the same. In the Zimmerman case. Some links would be useful, rather than a second hand summary of what's been talked about.

However, a quick google shows that three men were arrested and then charged with the fatal beating of Kevin Kress about a week after the incident. That followed an appeal for help by the police.

so... Man dies, police look for the perpetrators, find them after a tip-off, killers are arrested and charged.

Not quite the same as man dies, police know who did it but let them walk away, weeks later the family of the deceased are still calling for justice.

When I get home I'll post a link or two to the Kress case.

Looking around, the closest I can find to the other case is Micheal Zenquis who was beaten in 2009 after being linked to the rape of an 11 year old girl (police had said they were after someone with his nickname after a dodgy tip-off). He didn't die, and was trying to sue the police last year. The rapist was caught a day after Zenquis was beaten and was jailed for 30 years.

However, I can't see if the mob that attacked Zenquis were arrested or not, or even actively investigated by the police. It seems the mob that beat up the actual guy later on were not pursued.

I think this a a closer relation to the Zimmerman thing, with some police involvement. Of course the victim of the vigilante mob did not die, which is a pretty clear difference.

Archduke

Further, the same problem is extent in Ricky's hypothetical. A stranger given the key goes to the wrong house getting shot through the door. Where is the fear of death or great bodily harm? It's not there, so I would argue the law would not cover the act

forget hypotheticals. The Florida law has been in place 5 years. And justifiable homicides have trebled. The Tampa Bay Times have done an analysis of the effects of the law. And there's a lot of anecdotes about how the law has worked to end up in situations where people are killed or injured where previous to the law, violence might have been avoided. Including a situation like I hypothosized. (below in excerpt - note the prescience of the police chief. )
source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 128317.ece
excerpt

Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house,'' Chief John Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.''
Four years later, Billy Kuch got drunk, so drunk that at 5 a.m. one day he stumbled to the door of the wrong house in a look-alike neighborhood and tried to open it, twice.
Before the "stand your ground" law, homeowner Gregory Stewart would have been expected to hunker down in his Land O'Lakes residence, dead-bolt secure, and call police.
With the law in place, he could use deadly force anywhere he had a right to be, provided he felt threatened with death or great bodily harm. He had no duty to retreat from danger.Stewart left his wife inside with their baby and stepped outside, gun in hand.
Kuch put his hands up and asked for a light.
"Please don't make me shoot you," Stewart said.
Kuch, then 23, says he might have stumbled. Stewart, then 32, told police the unarmed man took three steps forward.
The bullet ripped into Kuch's chest, nicked his heart, shot through his liver, in and out of his stomach, through his spleen, then out his back. He felt like his body was on fire.
Stewart, when questioned by deputies, began to cry. "I could have given him a light," he said.
The days ticked by, Kuch in a coma as his parents waited for word of a trial. And waited. After two months, the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office decided the shooting was justified and dropped the aggravated battery charge.
Kuch's parents couldn't believe it.
"We're not against gun ownership," said Bill Kuch, 57 and retired from IBM. "But we're against this law that provides someone the right to kill you without prosecution."
Billy Kuch spent more than a month in the hospital.
"The guy is 6-1, 250. I'm 5-9, 165, and I have a 0.3 blood-alcohol level," he said. "Did he really think I was going to be able to take his gun away?"

Is this a responsible use of guns? It seems the law simply shields people from responsiblity for the use of fire arms when their use was wholly unjustified.
In Zimmermans case, he was wholly unjustified in following Martin with a loaded firearm. According to the SYG law, Martin was justified in standing up to Zimmermans aggression if he thought Zimmerman was a threat, and he obviously was...... And according to the law, if Martin did launch himself at Zimmerman - Zimmerman was wholly justiifed in shooting him.

What kind of law removes people from responsibility for their actions ? All this law seems to have done, is provide gun owners with a feeling that they can shoot without repercussions for their actions. Zimmermans actions precipitated the events.... Without SYG to protect him, would he have been so aggressive? (And before you say SYG doesn't apply, the police did apply the law. They let him go after the shooting because of SYG and stated as much. And it is possible to interpret the law as written in the way the police interpreted the law.)

And archduke, one can never know which of thousands of isolated incidents become the focus of the nation or world. Somehow it just catches the imagination of the media and the audience. Why would Rosa Parks refusing to move out of her seat become a focal point for the Civil Rights movement? One otherwise unremarkable case of racial inequality in a society where the same incidents probably happened thousands of times a day, And yet it became a symbol.

Whether Treyvon Martin is pure, I doubt. He doesn't have to be pure for this crime to be dealt with fairly. Nor do either of the parties have to be pure for the effects of a bad law to be demonstrated...and hopefully corrected.

danivon wrote:Again, we can't really compare ARJ's examples because there isn't enough to say they are really the same. In the Zimmerman case. Some links would be useful, rather than a second hand summary of what's been talked about.

This is kind of my point Dan. You can't make judgements about the Zimmerman case either because you (as in the general public) do not have enough information.

For example, the story, that is being backed up by witnesses is that Zimmerman actually lost Martin in the crowd and headed back to his SUV when Martin accosted him. Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Z's response was no. M's response was You do now and punched him in the nose which sent him to the ground.

At this point, M climbed on top of Z slammed his head into the ground a couple of times and then started punching him in the face.

So yes Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. However, once he got out and faced the above what should he have done?