| | Compare with this incident.
To me, 'stand your ground' has nothing to do with the FLA incident. Whoever initiated the first use of actual violence is key.
There were witnesses to some part of the altercation, and there was evidence. Trayvon Martin was shot and killed, and Mr. Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and back of head, and grass stains on the back of his shirt.
Words on the street, unless they included a threat of violence, are not the initiation of violence. So questions like, did Zimmerman brandish the gun and threaten Martin before Martin threw punches, etc., are important.
But lacking evidence of that, and if it is consistent with the witnesses, if they were both simply walking on a street that they were both entitled to walk on, and if Trayvon punched first, then this is self-defense, period.
There are other questions, like was Zimmerman legally armed in public under local licensing laws, but the key, IMO, is who initiated the violence with the first use of violence.
An unseen gun in his pocket is not the first use of violence. A visibly brandished gun is, if it is not itself in response to some other first use of violence. (See the Montco case.)
If Trayvor had every right to walk down that public street--and he did, then so did Mr. Zimmerman have that right. They were sharing a public street, period. If the hurdle for first use of violence is now "I was sharing the public street with somebody who made me uncomfortable so I beat them/shot them" then we are in a lot of trouble.
The suggestions/advice from LE "Are you following him?...Yes....You don't need to be doing that."-- is not any kind of command, lawful or otherwise.
But for all of that, this case doesn't sound anything like 'stand your ground' or 'castle' laws, and so, it is ridiculous to drag those into this.
It does, however, hinge on who was defending who after the first use of violence.
To arrest Zimmerman, there has to be evidence somewhere that he brandished his gun at Trayvor before Trayvor allegedly beat him. Is there that evidence?
To blame Zimmerman, however, is much easier. But before that happens, we need to know why he had to call the police so many times in the past in that neighborhood, and what were the prior outcomes and circumstances. Otherwise, this could be a case of 'blame the victim(s)' indeed, and perhaps the marchers should be placing the blame on past perps who successfully acted criminally in that same neighborhood, establishing an environment of justifiable paranoia with Trayvon the latest victim of same.
|
|
