Trayvon Martin's Killing Is Now A Murder Case. Should "Stand Your Ground" Laws Be Repealed ?
|
|
|||||
|
49 votes
|
|
74% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
26% | ||
Trayvon Martin's Killing Is Now A Murder Case. Should The "Stand Your Ground" Law Be Repealed ?
Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed because:
1. They require “law enforcement officials to prove that a suspect did not act in self-defense. [NYT] ” This burden of proof is a bridge too far on the presumption of innocence continuum. You cannot prove motive with confidence on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the other guy happens to be dead.
2. They protect shooters from civil suits, where the burden of proof for a civil judgement is lower. This means that when the state doesn’t charge no civil options remain to the victim’s family.
3. Many of the victims have been unarmed (12 of 13 studied in a recent Orlando Sentinel investigation).
4. Police chiefs do not understand the laws, and thus abrogate their duty to investigate fully in the first crucial hours following an incident, allowing vital forensic evidence to be destroyed.
5. Clueless gun owners, like George Zimmerman, who are inclined to ignore or misunderstand policies and regulations regarding use of a firearm, will falsely believe they have rights that they do not, in reality, possess.
6. They encourage vigilantism by codifying a set of assumptions that magnifies the real degree of threat posed by “suspicious” persons possessed of unknown intent. This effect is exacerbated by racial profiling, as well as outright racism, and further fueled by the now well-known “hoodie effect.”
7. They represent an attempt to “normalize” the use of firearms in situations where the standard of proof is that of “feeling threatened,” a standard that is not codified with objective criteria under the laws.
8. People under investigation for having committed a crime involving the use of a firearm already possess a presumption of innocence.
9. They serve to reinforce the brutality of American society, driven by a paranoid sense of threat experienced by some armed civilians.
10. They represent a license to kill. And, as I have said before, it’s not gun nuts who bother me, it’s nuts with guns. I agree with Chattanooga, Tennessee gun enthusiast Sally Peterson who told WRCB TV,"You can't approach a person and draw your gun. I just think there are too many wannabe cops.”
Read More: http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/04...
Top Opinion
-
aneed2know 2012/04/12 05:38:39
i dont know maybe shoot them in the leg or a warning shot to make them back off not aim to kill them
anyone can act all Gangsta
You were saying?
the Actions of Small group of idiots do not Focus on the Entire Race
are there violent whites Yes are there violent blacks yes are there violent latinos yes
are there violent mexicans yes
anyone is capable of violent and ignorance
If any relationship is to be drawn between the poorly written law and the unlawful actions of Zimmerman, it's that his misinterpretation of the law may have - to some degree - helped to justify in his own mind the killing of this innocent boy. But it's also clear from not just the 9-11 call HE made but also from the call between Trayvon and his girlfriend at the time Zimmerman was pursuing him that Trayvon was neither acting suspiciously nor presenting himself as a threat in any way, shape, or form to Zimmerman or the public at large.
It is more worrisome to me that the cops did not hold Zimmy even after his admitting to a crime.
It is one thing to hold a bias, it is another to not be aware of it and instead let it control your actions.
On court TV today they said they are not charging this as a hate crime because Zim did not use any racial slurs. If it turns out he just hates teenagers, I hope he gets away with a slap on the wrist. I'm kidding. I'm letting a bias show. lol
But, It is not self defense if he shot the kid in the back and the witness, on the phone, told Zim, the cops were coming and to stop following the kid, but he kept going and going and going.
I think I understand your concern when it comes to someone having to defend themselves, but that was not what went on here, even in Zimmerman's version, no matter what he wants to call it.
We will find out what happened, I guess, but we almost did not have that chance because the cops...well...let's just say, were careless.
But for making us better off in general not so much.
If you could have left does not matter.
Hopefully, to prove one was provoked, it is a very high standard. I only heard of this law after someone used it as a defense, successfully, in court.
I know what you mean, I think, but you do not want to give people, who do not take responsibility for their own actions, a pass to kill.
As for your last comment. I agree with it as written however I don't see it as applicable to the fundamental right to self defense.