Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[maiforpeace]

Phone logs reveal last moments before fatal shooting of unarmed black teen in Florida

A teenager on the phone with an unarmed black teen shot and killed by a neighbourhood watch captain asked the boy to run and heard the confrontation, telephone logs reveal.

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” the 16-year-old friend of Trayvon Martin said, according to logs obtained and released by ABC News on Tuesday.

“I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.”

Martin, 17, did run, but the man returned and cornered him.

“Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone.”

Following escalating protests, the U.S. Justice Department announced late Monday it will investigate the Feb. 26 shooting.

An online petition at Change.org had collected more than a half-million signatures by Tuesday morning, with new names added every few seconds from around the world, including Canada.

George Zimmerman, 28, claims he shot Martin last month in self-defence during a confrontation in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist.

Zimmerman spotted Martin as he was patrolling his neighbourhood on a rainy evening and called the police emergency dispatcher to report a suspicious person.

When Zimmerman said he was going after the person, the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman followed Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store with a bag of Skittles candy in his pocket.

In one of the police calls immediately after the confrontation, a woman pleads for police help as a voice screams for help in the background. The woman describes another gunshot and the screaming stops.

The Justice Department said in a statement late Monday that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will join in the agency’s investigation.

“The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation,” the agency said.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton is expected to join Sanford city leaders in a Tuesday evening town hall meeting to discuss with residents how the investigation is being handled. The Justice Department said its community relations service also will be in Sanford this week to meet with authorities, community officials and civil rights leaders “to address tension in the community.”

Earlier Monday, college students around Florida rallied to demand Zimmerman’s arrest, though authorities may be hamstrung by a state law that allows people to defend themselves with deadly force.

Prosecutors may not be able to charge Zimmerman because of changes to state law in 2005. Under the old law, people could use deadly force in self-defence only if they had tried to run away or otherwise avoid the danger.

Under the new law, there is no duty to retreat and it gives a Floridian the right “to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,” if he feels threatened.

Students held rallies on the campus of Florida A&M University in Tallahassee and outside the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, where prosecutors are reviewing the case to determine if charges should be filed.

“I don’t think a man who exited his vehicle after the 911 dispatcher told him to stay inside the car can claim self-defence,” Carl McPhail, a 28-year-old Barry University law school student, said at the Sanford rally.

The 70 protesters at the Sanford rally chanted “What if it was your son?” and held posters saying, “This is not a race issue.” Many carried Skittles.

Martin’s parents and other advocates have said the shooter would have been arrested had he been black.

“You would think that Sanford is still in the 1800s claiming that this man can call self-defence for shooting an unarmed boy,” restaurant owner Linda Tillman said.

Florida congresswoman Corrine Brown along with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, had asked the U.S. Department of Justice to review the case, and White House spokesman Jay Carney said earlier Monday during a briefing that officials there were aware of what happened.

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to Trayvon Martin’s family,” Carney said at the time. “But obviously we’re not going to wade into a local law enforcement matter.”

A message to Brown’s spokesman late Monday was not immediately returned.

Late Monday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott directed the state Department of Law Enforcement to help local authorities in their investigation. The governor said in a memo to department Commissioner Gerald Bradley that the circumstances surrounding the death “have caused significant concern within the Sanford community and the state.”

Prosecutors can have a hard time making a case if there is no one else around to contradict a person who claims self-defence, said David Hill, a criminal defence attorney in Orlando. So far, Sanford police have said there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claims.

“If there is nobody around and you pull a gun, you just say, ‘Hey, I reasonably believed I was under imminent attack. Hey, sorry. Too bad. But you can’t prosecute me,’” Hill said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Gun control advocates said the case is emblematic of permissive gun laws in Florida, which was among the first states to allow residents to carry concealed weapons. Florida was the first state to pass a “Stand Your Ground” law, which has been dubbed a “Shoot First” law by gun control advocates.

Currently, about half of all U.S. states have similar laws, said Brian Malte, legislative director of the Brady Campaign, which describes itself as the nation’s largest organization dedicated to the prevention of gun violence.

“It’s coming to dangerous fruition,” Malte said. “There are more states like Florida.”

The “Stand Your Ground” law’s legislative sponsor, Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, said it wasn’t written to give people the power to pursue and confront others.

“That’s not what this legislation does,” said Baxley, a Republican. “Unfortunately, every time there is an unfortunate incident involving a firearm, they think it’s about this law, and it’s not."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't disagree with the stand your ground law. If Jane Doe is jogging in the park, she is perfectly within her rights to do so, and ought not be legally required to go elsewhere under threat from some attempted assailant.

[HomerJay]

Guns don't kill people, laws do.

[FBM]

Prosecutors may not be able to charge Zimmerman because of changes to state law in 2005. Under the old law, people could use deadly force in self-defence only if they had tried to run away or otherwise avoid the danger.

Under the new law, there is no duty to retreat and it gives a Floridian the right “to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,” if he feels threatened.

While I think it's horrible what happened, I don't think the law is to blame. A law that requires you to try to run away inadvertently requires you to risk getting shot or stabbed in the back, unless you're a champion back-peddler. There aren't enough details in the story. I once knew a (black) 16-y.o. who was 6'1" and close to 300lbs. If he'd grabbed me, I wouldn't have been able to do much other than shoot him, and I wasn't a small guy at the time. But we were friends, so it never became a question.

I don't think the law is to blame. From what I've read, I suspect Zimmerman is to blame. But that's just a guess, too, given the paucity of details.

[Svartalf]

What the? and I suppose he doesn't have to show that he was indeed in the kind of danger where the need for deadly force was reasonable... I mean, gun vs unarmed guy, while not on one's own property (so no castle laws where evil intent can be assumed of trespassers)... that's still murder 2 in my book, even if the other party was up to getting physical, which hasn't been demonstrated.

[maiforpeace]

I don't disagree with the stand your ground law. If Jane Doe is jogging in the park, she is perfectly within her rights to do so, and ought not be legally required to go elsewhere under threat from some attempted assailant.

If you're the paranoid type, you're going to think everyone is after you. If you're racist or ignorant, you're going to think black people are after you. Maybe god told you someone's after you. Is that a good enough reason to shoot someone who hasn't made one overt move towards you?

[Coito ergo sum]

What the? and I suppose he doesn't have to show that he was indeed in the kind of danger where the need for deadly force was reasonable... I mean, gun vs unarmed guy, while not on one's own property (so no castle laws where evil intent can be assumed of trespassers)... that's still murder 2 in my book, even if the other party was up to getting physical, which hasn't been demonstrated.

So, if a guy attacks you on a city street with no witnesses, and you kill the guy in self-defense, it would automatically be murder-2 in your book, because you couldn't "show" that you were in the kind of danger where deadly force was reasonable?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't disagree with the stand your ground law. If Jane Doe is jogging in the park, she is perfectly within her rights to do so, and ought not be legally required to go elsewhere under threat from some attempted assailant.

If you're the paranoid type, you're going to think everyone is after you. If you're racist or ignorant, you're going to think black people are after you. Maybe god told you someone's after you. Is that a good enough reason to shoot someone who hasn't made one overt move towards you?

All true, and no that is not a good enough reason, IMO.

It's also not a good enough reason under the stand-your-ground law.

[FBM]

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

[Coito ergo sum]

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

Do we have enough information to draw a conclusion on his guilt, yet?

[klr]

I don't disagree with the stand your ground law. If Jane Doe is jogging in the park, she is perfectly within her rights to do so, and ought not be legally required to go elsewhere under threat from some attempted assailant.

If you're the paranoid type, you're going to think everyone is after you. If you're racist or ignorant, you're going to think black people are after you. Maybe god told you someone's after you. Is that a good enough reason to shoot someone who hasn't made one overt move towards you?

All true, and no that is not a good enough reason, IMO.

It's also not a good enough reason under the stand-your-ground law.

Indeed, and that's the gist of what the sponsor of the law in Florida had to say as well, according to the article:

...

The “Stand Your Ground” law’s legislative sponsor, Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, said it wasn’t written to give people the power to pursue and confront others.

“That’s not what this legislation does,” said Baxley, a Republican. “Unfortunately, every time there is an unfortunate incident involving a firearm, they think it’s about this law, and it’s not."

That however is not IMHO to say the law was not a factor in the shooter's actions. He may have thought the law allowed him to do this. But AFAIK, ignorance of laws (including what they do and do not allow) is not a defence.

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

This is also true.

[FBM]

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

Do we have enough information to draw a conclusion on his guilt, yet?

Nope. Nowhere near enough. Anything at this point is not much different from a blind guess.

[Svartalf]

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

screeners? man, that's a gated community, they WANT fierce types that will ruthlessly repel anybody not identified as "not an intruder" by any available means.

[FBM]

If such a guy became an armed neighborhood watch captain, the screeners were at fault.

screeners? man, that's a gated community, they WANT fierce types that will ruthlessly repel anybody not identified as "not an intruder" by any available means.

Huh? What's your image of a gated community in the US? And where did you get that image?