Let’s not talk about race. Let’s imagine for a moment, that all of the characters in this play are grey, or mauve, or chartreuse, and let’s talk about justice.
A man on neighborhood patrol spots a teenager walking through a gated community. He calls the police, who tell him they are on the way and not to follow him. His response, as he ignores law enforcement: “these assholes always get away.”
He follows the youth. He gets out of his car. Loud confrontation ensues, loud enough for neighbors to call 911. The (now released) 911 tapes reveal a boy pleading for his life, followed by gunfire.
A child dies. This is a tragedy.
Police arrive, and discover the man they told not to follow this child, has killed him. No arrest is made, as police later claim his record is “squeaky clean.” It is later discovered he had a criminal record and a history of aggressive behavior. The shooter–who outweighed the child by 100 pounds–was carrying a licensed handgun. He claims self-defense. The child was carrying a bag of Skittles and an iced-tea. When questioned, the police say they lack “probable cause” to warrant an arrest.
Probable cause can be defined as “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime.” The shooter remains free, and the child remains dead.
This is a grave injustice.
In a free society it is our greatest responsibility to protect our children. The faith we place in those entrusted to enforce law asks that the application be universal, even if this means they implicate themselves.
Listen to the 911 calls. And ask yourself: if this was your child, would you feel justice has been served?
Read Sanford Chief of Police Lee’s letter to GMP’s Senior Editor, Justin Cascio, regarding the death of Trayvon Martin.
Image: orlando sentinel
I believe one of the most important questions remain undiscussed, which is why does the “stand your ground law only apply to Zimmerman and not Trayvon? Trayvon was being pursued by an unknowingly person without just cause and had every right to defend himself. Although the outcome for Trayvon was horrific, why does a law only apply to one individual and not all involved?
I am an black male and have been strongarmed by authority figures for years and even if I had perpetrated a crime,the factor of being big and black and aggressive in an altercation weigh heavily againstt me even when the authorities or accuser were the aggressor. Even when being handcuffed or suspected of a crime,I am treated as guilty. Even if I had just coached some youth in sports and helped an elderly lady across the street and with her groceries,I could take ten steps and be umder scrutiny if someone just accused me of a crime. This is all… Read more »
My apologies. No he is not justified for shooting a fellow earthling. No not justified no way no how. Justified on suspicion,on calling it in ,on being concerned. But this man should not have a kill of another human
Under his belt no matt
er how much grieving he is doing? The act of permission to carry comes with the reality of responsibilty to ones fellow man and trust. The responsibility that we all assume that you will
in reply to jackie summers, no the writer is not suggesting that the actions were just. It’s quite the opposite. The objective is to say that even if race is not considered, Justice was still not served.
sorry. jackie is the author. I misread the comments
i swear that is some bull shit that should not of happened to that yung man the way it did
Let’s not talk about race. Let’s imagine for a moment, that all of the characters in this play are grey, or mauve, or chartreuse, and let’s talk about justice. Are you suggesting his actions were just?
this was a racist act let the shoe would have been on the other foot if that was a black man that killed a 17yr old white kid….would there be any questions?????i don’t think so he would’ve have gotten beaten by the police and threw under the jail for murder….this man needs to be stoned to death…..i pray to the good lord that when he meets his maker hes punished that child was pleading for his life…i cried hearing the tapes…i cant wait until see if he’s charged and they need to throw him in a mostly african american prison… Read more »
This case is really weird to say the least. I have so many questions about the facts that go unanswered. I hope they look at the hard evidence and make it public soon.
Zimmerman should have politely engaged the young man, found out about him, and given him a ride to where he was going. That’s how it’s done by people who actually know what they are doing. I have no idea why he started by calling the police. If he’s too scared to actually have a conversation with strangers (or is it just black strangers) then he had no business being out there. And that is probably the understatement of the year. Jail this idiot now.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html I’m no LE or attorney, but in my opinion Zimmerman clearly violated Chapter 776.041, Sections 2(a)(b). When he decided to pursue Mr. Martin, he became the aggressor, thus he voided justification. According to this law only police officers have the right to use deadly force in such situation. Because Mr. Zimmerman followed and tracked Travon, Travon had a right to use physical force to protect himself. Again, Zimmerman is not a police office or any other officer of the Court. Secondly, Zimmerman violated Chapter 776.013(2)(a). As the child of a confirmed resident, Travon HAD A RIGHT TO BE THERE.… Read more »
Drew Look up justifiable homicide on Wikipedia. Scroll down to the part of US laws. Notice that the Castle Doctrine in many states includes “anywhere a person has a right to be”. IE, the street. And if a claim of self defense is made, that is regarded as true until proven otherwise – beyond a reasonable doubt.. IOWs, there is no crime here that they can jail Zimmerman for until that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After the trial, IOWs. Folks, this all might be a simple tale of good vs evil on a cosmic level but the actions… Read more »
An innocent child (17 year old boy) was MURDERED while walking home from a 7-11 after getting a drink and some candy. Then we have a man who called police to warn them of suspicious behavior (a young black male walking in his neighborhood), the police dispatcher told him not to pursue the person, yet that is exactly what he did. The Miami Herald reported that a police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation. “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival… Read more »
You’re certainly intitled to your opinion but you are completely wrong as far at the law goes. By ignoring the dispatcher Zimmerman in no way gave up his legal right to defend himself or others.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2F0776.html Zimmerman clearly violated Chapter 776.041, Sections 2(a)(b). When he decided to pursue Mr. Martin, he became the aggressor, thus he voided justification. According to this law only police officers have the right to use deadly force in such situation. Because Mr. Zimmerman followed and tracked Travon, Travon had a right to use physical force to protect himself. Again, Zimmerman is not a police office or any other officer of the Court. Secondly, Zimmerman violated Chapter 776.013(2)(a). As the child of a confirmed resident, Travon HAD A RIGHT TO BE THERE. Therefore Zimmerman had no right to use deadly force.… Read more »
Following someone is not an act of aggression but for the sake of this argument lets say that it is. Even so, the exact portion of law that you referenced does not void ones right to use deadly force should the confrontation escalate to the point where the instagator feels that they are in (a) “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger”. So, even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, if he was on his back and therefore unable to resonably flee AND felt that he… Read more »
Drew I am not very good with linking, Sorry. I am a non-lawyer but I read some. In a state with a strong Castle doctrine you, there is no requirement for “porportionality”. The other guy need not be armed in order to claim self defense. There is a virtually absolute right to do what is needed to stop certain crimes from being committed. Should a Good Man use violence to defend property? No. They can have my TV. Does the law in Florida require that I give them my TV? No. Should a G.M. run around playing Cop and robbers… Read more »
The linking thing is easy. Find the article that backs you up, copy the link from the browser window and paste it into your comment. We appreciate at that here, whenever possible.
actually, no. that would apply in his home (the “castle” part of castle doctrine) but if you’re on the street, the rules are different.
While we’re on the subject of your backing claims up with facts, can you point me to any authority that says lethal force is allowed in defense against anything less than a lethal threat?
“There is a virtually absolute right to do what is needed to stop certain crimes from being committed” sounds awfully vague, perhaps more research would clear up the vagaries there.
The police had every reason to arrest this man and chose not to. Hell, I got beat up when I was nine months pregnant and 17 years old, and because I admitted I struck back in self defense (even though I was the one who was bloody and bruised) and the man involved did not admit anything, I was the one who got arrested. The police spouted some bullshit about OJ Simpson. The point? They could have EASILY arrested him as someone WAS KILLED and the shooter admitted to killing. Yes, a trial needs to happen, that’s due process, but… Read more »
The Duke case was quickly turned into a narrative by elite media that was pitch perfect for arousing the favorite outrage-modes of the liberal elite in general. Once that train got rolling, it took a mountain of counter evidence to stop it. No criminal case in history generated more publicly available (and private no doubt) evidence of innocence before the whole mess was finally stopped. Now we see another train gathering momentum. Apparently, anyone who does not jump whole-heartedly on board with the Narrative is an evil racist. Apparently, around here, no Good Man would dare to resist the Narrative… Read more »
Of course I would admit when I’m wrong. It’s silly to think otherwise. In the twenty days since the shooting nothing has changed about what we know about the victim. He wasn’t found with drugs or a weapon. He didn’t have a large sum of money on him. He was suspended from school for tardiness. He was visiting with a parent and the parent’s girlfriend. Both of his parents have come forward and asked for an explanation of the events and justice for their son. If there was something untoward or criminal about Mr. Martin I think the media, elite… Read more »
The Duke case and Richard Jewell taught us to question authority and power; not it’s victims. Conflating this tragedy and the Duke case is obscene.
Disagree. Nearly all of the information that we have in this case comes from the media and “civil rights” groups and atheletes twitter accounts. It’s a joke to launch a witch hunt without the facts. I have yet to see a police report released. A statement from Zimmerman. A ballistics report. A medical report of Zimmermans injuries. How about a map that shows where Zimmerman was when he advised that Martin was running in relation to where the shooting took place. How do we know that Martin didn’t become the agressor after Zimmerman returned to his vehicle? We don’t. We… Read more »
How about we ask the other guy, just to get both sides of the story? Right, we can’t; he’s dead. So let’s just take the word of the overzealous mall-cop with a criminal record? MUCH better stratagem. Because EVERYONE who admits to killing an unarmed child is clearly defending themselves from lethal force.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
“Former Republican State Sen. Durell Peadon, another co-author of the law, said Zimmerman “has no protection under my law.”
A good man would keep an open mind before making final judgments and would not hesitate to take the side of an unpopular defendant. A good man would have learned that the Media spins stories relentlessly and would therefore instinctively look for what they are not telling – because they rather that you not know. Remember the false rape charges at Duke in 2006. For anyone with curiosity and an open mind, there was massive evidence from the first week or so that the charges could not have been true. The NYTs and all the Networks worked over-time to ignore… Read more »
What do you think the response would have been if it had been a 17-year old white girl who had gotten shot and killed?
Unanwered questions: Those pictures the media is printing, when were they taken? Like when Trayvon was in 8th grade? Or recently when, for all we know, he was bigger than Z. Why did the first, local media reports mention that Z. was on the ground taking hits but later National one omitted that? If Z. was so much the aggressor, why did he not shoot before he was down and getting pounded? If it was raining and cold and dark, wandering around a neighborhood appearing to be checking things out would definitely send alarm bells off. Regardless if he lived… Read more »
Rum, why do you want to defend what happened here? A 17-year old kid got chased, after the police told Z not to chase him. He got killed. Killed. No one is denying any of those facts.
How is that okay under circumstances?
What is your motive for wanting to paint a picture of how this could possibly be a good thing?
Police did not tell Z not to chase him. A dispatcher did. Zimmerman has no duty to obey a non-sworn police department employee. He had a right to follow a precieved suspect, at risk of his own safety, to help officers find the suspect when they arrived.
It’s been reported Zimmerman outweighed Trevon by 100 lbs. You can wax poetic on legal loopholes all you want Rum. We’re having a conversation on this website about justice, about men, and what it means to be a good man. I’m a man and as far as I am concerned, the facts nobody are disputing in this case tell me Zimmerman isn’t. He’s a coward and, from what I am learning now, a bit of an over-zealous, aggressive, clown around his neighborhood.
I hope he spends his life bitched up in prison paying for his sins.
There are no “cops” involved here. This is a private citizen who stalked and murdered a black boy in a neighborhood that was home to a parent and his parent’s partner. 17 year olds come in a variety of sizes and someone walking in the rain may just enjoy walking in the f*cking rain. Racists have always tried to use the law and the characteristics and actions of black and brown people against them. The Dred Scott decision affirmed that black people had no rights that a white person was bound to respect. The result of this is a history… Read more »
Just curious. How do you think Zimmermans nose, lip, and head were bloodied?
The things that have little bearing on this case: (In the eyes of the law) The age of the kid – not knowable in advance What the dispatcher told Z. – no duty to obey What the kid was actually carrying as found after the fact – cus its unknowable at the time Where he lived, where he was going – no one can know this in advance at the moment of truth An old charge that was dropped. I am not a lawyer or in LE, but my take is that it mostly comes down to “who was the… Read more »
The time to view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant is not at the scene of the crime. The time for that is when you’re putting on your defense. In court. Where this is meant to be sorted out. I’m sure you mean well (giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don’t just enjoy being a serial contrarian) but I think you’ve misunderstood why there is public outrage. Yes, there will always be people who want to convict someone before he’s stood trial. That’s not why everyone is upset. Your telling may have… Read more »
“When questioned, the police say they lack “probable cause” to warrant an arrest.”
I’m sure the police would have no trouble finding ‘probable cause’ to arrest Mr. Martin had he been doing something they didn’t approve of (even if that didn’t involve SHOOTING A CHILD). I can’t imagine what his mother is going through.
Something is wrong. “gated” community tells me that someone had some $$ and power. May not have been charged yet … with some luck, who knows?
It is not justice.
Yes, this is horrible.
There needs to be an arrest, trial, and justice.
Wow, this is horrible. I don’t know the whole story, but it sounds like there was absolutely no reason for lethal force to be used. I’m not sure how he can justify that he felt like his life was threatened when the kid was smaller and unarmed, and shouting for help…
The police need to investigate this man. And someone needs to investigate the police, too.
How do you know the boy was shouting for help? Have you listened to the 911 tapes? It’s indecernable and an eye witness says it was Zimmerman yelling for help. If Zimmerman had been punched in the nose, knocked down, and had head beaten into the ground would that justify lethal force? Thats what he says happened. How do you know that it didn’t happen that way? You haven’t seen the police reports. You haven’t seen the ballistics reports. You didn’t witness the shooting. We should wait for the facts before making this such a which hunt and racial issue.
Even under the Stand Your Ground Law, if you start a fight and then begin to LOSE, you don’t get the right to use deadly force. Zimmerman became the aggressor the minute he chose to leave his vehicle and pursue a boy on foot after being told by the police not to do so.
I disagree. I don’t believe pursuing a precieved prowler should be considered “starting a fight”. Now if he tackled Martin, punched him, or maybe even grabbed him and Martin retaliated and started to get the upped hand then I might agree with you. The problem is that we don’t know who the initial agressor was in terms of physical assault and we may never.
You can disagree with me. The people who WROTE THE LAW disagree with you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
“Republican state lawmakers in Florida responsible for a controversial 2005 self-defense law said it shouldn’t apply to a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, in February.”
Doing security guard patrol I just questioned a guy the other night. He’s in a gated community, standing next to a garage at 4 am shining a flashlight around. Not knowing what he was doing, but not assuming he was a criminal yet, I asked him if I could help him. He said he was looking for his morning paper. Since that seemed plausible and knowing the delivery person hadn’t been by yet, I told him so. Then I checked the house a little later to see if everything was OK. I did not get out of my vehicle, get… Read more »