His past record is irrelevant. You people remind me of the spin doctors on tv. Someone had a speeding ticket, cited for jaywalking and cited for music too loud one time. On TV you say. Oh this perp has had several brushes with the law in the past. He has a police record. What was he arrested for resisting arrest? Makes sense. You go by what he did to the kid. Not what he did in the past. Its clear. He stalked the kid, the child defended himself, he shot him and claimed self defense. That guy should be in jail. Common sense. Is everyone stupid? I am completely horrified what it has come to. Everyones brainwashed.
I agree. I think the problem with these discussions is the tendency to treat what is really a policy question as a "online trial" with people playing defense attorney. If I was Zimmerman's attorney and this went to trial I would most certainly try to keep his past run ins with the law out. If I was a prosecutor I would do my best to get it in. That's one reason why defendants often do not testify in their own defense even if they really are innocent. Who knows what might get brought out in cross examination?
But the bigger policy question is, why is he not being arrested? Is this a proper application of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as written? If yes then it clearly should be amended. If no then it needs to be clarified. Some (old) thoughts on the law.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html
Here's the part of the law in question:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
So go through the elements:
1) Was Zimmerman engaged in unlawful activity? No apparently.
2) Was he attacked? Well...that's where the argument is. And that's why this should go to trial IMO. Did Travon finally get pissed at Zimmerman, not knowing Zimmerman had a gun, and decide to beat down this guy he legitimately thought was stalking him? Or did Zimmerman initiate physical contact? (Who punched who first?) A jury should decide that.
3) Did Zimmerman reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to himself? Well Travon had no weapon. According to a witness he had overpowered Zimmerman and was beating him up. (Zimmerman sounds like a real punk by the way considering that he couldn't handle a teenager that he outweighed by 100 lbs). This is another matter that a jury should decide.
4) Was anybody else in danger? No. Zimmerman hasn't even alleged that.
5) Was a forcible felony being prevented? No. (I assume "forcible felony" = rape, robbery or kidnapping).
Based on the law as written, prosecutors and police in Florida are not correctly applying it by saying they lack probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.
But here's how the law could/should be clarified.
1) Initiating a disturbance negates the self defense presumption. You shouldn't be able to pick a fight and the automagically claim "self defense". Yes there might be circumstances where it's still legitimate self defense, but you should have the burden to show that.
2) No self defense presumption for a disproportionate use of force. I call this the "take your beating like a man" clause. Zimmerman shot Travon because he was getting his butt whupped. If Travon had pulled a knife or gun that would be a different story. Which reminds me. I wonder how this would be playing out in the legal system and the media now if Travon had pulled a gun when he saw Zimmerman pulling his and killed Zimmerman? That would arguably be a better self defense claim. But would Travon now be facing murder charges as a young black male who killed a neighborhood watch captain?
