Zimmerman/Martin Case

[franklin]

He shot him with a Kel Tec? Cheap ass throw away gun.

[Scat]

He shot him with a Kel Tec? Cheap ass throw away gun.

Did the job, didn't it?

[Gameface]

^Kel Tec owner?

[franklin]

Did the job, didn't it?

Luckily (or not depending on perspective). Cheap guns jam.

The last thing you want to do is hear 'click' if you're already taking an ass beating. I don't think a guy is likely to lighten up on you after you just unsuccessfully tried to shoot him.

[Nate505]

He killed him, but he was also getting his ass beat, it will be tough if not impossible to convict him of anything above manslaughter.

That's about what I feel now.

I still believe if he would have just minded his own business he wouldn't be in this mess right now. Not sure how a grown man lets a 17 year old beat his ass that bad too.

[One Brow]

I just read your blog. Just a technical point I'd like to make, guns don't "go off," they're fired. To be certain, Zimmerman fired his gun at Martin with lethal intent.

There is a question in all this I don't really know the answer to. If Zimmerman was the aggressor and your story is fairly accurate, at what point does Zimmerman surrender his right to self-defense? If I can make a loose analogy, just because a girl is making out with you and wearing provocative clothes (or not wearing clothes) she retains the right to say "no" at any point. So, even if Zimmerman was following Martin and harassing him, does that mean he has surrendered his right to defend himself should Martin react to the harassment by attacking Zimmerman? Unless Zimmerman struck first Martin would have committed a crime by physically attacking Zimmerman, correct? So doesn't Zimmerman have the right to protect himself from an illegal physical attack?

Now, to me this is actually a big problem for supporters of individuals' right to self defense and by extension the right to use firearms for self defense. If I can basically taunt someone, sort of like the big brother poking at his little brother while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you," then when the person being taunted responds I pull out my firearm and kill them and claim justified self defense. That's not okay in my book, even though I'm a very avid supporter of a person's right to defend them self. I think that's what may have happened in this case. I think a clearer guideline needs to be established based on this case.

I accept your point about guns, but since I have no experience with them, I would not offer such a conclusion on my own.

I don't know where the legal line is or should be. As far as I'm concerned, morally and ethically, Zimmerman waived his claim to self-denfense when he became the aggressor, pursuing someone who was running away. If he had seen Martin committing a crime, though, I would probably have a different opinion on that.

[franklin]

I accept your point about guns, but since I have no experience with them, I would not offer such a conclusion on my own.

I don't know where the legal line is or should be. As far as I'm concerned, morally and ethically, Zimmerman waived his claim to self-denfense when he became the aggressor, pursuing someone who was running away. If he had seen Martin committing a crime, though, I would probably have a different opinion on that.

I agree that Zimmerman waived his right to self defense based on your narrative on your blog. Stalking children is a no no. I would expect any child to act irrationally (fight or flight) when they feel their life is in danger, which Trayvon easily could have.

[Scat]

^Kel Tec owner?

Nope.

[JimLes]

Regardless of legal issues, what is really morally repugnant about this situation is that it's part of a larger narrative where private property is acquiring more value than human life. Even if Trayvon Martin was a burglar and even if he was looking to steal, do you have the moral right to go shoot him? And let's be honest, you take a gun with you, you're considering shooting someone. Unless you actually believe someone is a threat to your person, what business do you have playing vigilante? I see someone I think has stolen or is about to steal something, I call the police. I don't go looking to shoot them because I think my freaking hub caps are worth more than his life.

It's like this article I read a few days ago - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../20385281.html

Apparently, stealing two DVD players(that's what...50 dollar value today?) justifies the use of deadly force.

[One Brow]

Regardless of legal issues, what is really morally repugnant about this situation is that it's part of a larger narrative where private property is acquiring more value than human life.

Is "acquiring" accurate? Common tropes include that stealing horses and cattle were hanging offenses, putting hexes on crops could get you hung/burned, etc.

[JimLes]

Is "acquiring" accurate? Common tropes include that stealing horses and cattle were hanging offenses, putting hexes on crops could get you hung/burned, etc.

Well, I was thinking about the last 50 years, when I thought we had moved away from shooting people for theft.

[Gameface]

Well, I was thinking about the last 50 years, when I thought we had moved away from shooting people for theft.

Shooting someone over a DVD player is stupid, but a person has every right to stop someone from stealing from them. If I were going to try to prevent someone from stealing from me I would bring a gun, not because I intended to shoot them but because when I try to stop them THEY might get violent and threaten ME with violence. So again, is the DVD worth more than a human life? I'd ask the thief that question.

[One Brow]

Well, I was thinking about the last 50 years, when I thought we had moved away from shooting people for theft.

I wasn't aware that we had, at least in the USA.

[JimLes]

Shooting someone over a DVD player is stupid, but a person has every right to stop someone from stealing from them. If I were going to try to prevent someone from stealing from me I would bring a gun, not because I intended to shoot them but because when I try to stop them THEY might get violent and threaten ME with violence. So again, is the DVD worth more than a human life? I'd ask the thief that question.

By bringing a gun, you're saying that a DVD player is worth more. That's my point. I don't think you have any moral right to stop someone from stealing by killing them. Any. I just don't think that you as a private citizen have the right to decide that someone has forfeited their right to leave because they stole some material possession from you.

And if you didn't intend to shoot someone, then why did you bring the gun? If you know things might end with someone's death, why would you go down that road at all?

[Gameface]

By bringing a gun, you're saying that a DVD player is worth more. That's my point. I don't think you have any moral right to stop someone from stealing by killing them. Any. I just don't think that you as a private citizen have the right to decide that someone has forfeited their right to leave because they stole some material possession from you.

And if you didn't intend to shoot someone, then why did you bring the gun? If you know things might end with someone's death, why would you go down that road at all?

Again, you're placing responsibility in the wrong place.

I absolutely have every right to stop someone from leaving my house with my property. To suggest I don't is so laughably silly I can't even wrap my head around it.