'timschochet said:
'ATC1 said:
The screams for help were going on for a while before the bang.
And that's why I believe that if the prosecutor can prove the screams were from Martin, it would almost surely (see guys? no absolutes!) lead to a conviction. Because it would mean that, at the very least, Zimmerman had time to decide upon a course of action, and then chose to kill Martin. You don't take your time with self-defense.
ONe thing I get from this and other stories posted in association is that what is considered "self-defense" can actually be a cold, calculated decision to end's someone's life where whether or not the shooter was actually in any danger is allowed a wide degree of evaluation. If we are working under the premise that a single blow to the head can kill you, then the only justification needed for self-defense is the belief that someone could take a swing at you.The case from South Carolina, though apparently still under investigation as to whether the shooter will be charged, shows a man using self-defense when his victims are actually hiding from him.
Another case, based on a 911 call from a homeowner, details a man informing officers that he knows the law and that he can legally shoot and kill burglars robbing the house next door. On the call he calmly describes his plan to kill the two suspects and at no point references any fear for himself whatsoever. He (while still on the phone) leaves the security of his home, goes outside to confront the robbers, says "Hello, you're dead." and shoots and kills both of them. This was ruled self-defense and the man was never charged.
Another case in Florida detailed a man who shot and killed a drunk on his front porch who had mistakenly tried to gain entry to his house by mistake. The homeowner, armed, chose to leave his house, exit the front door to confront the man, and when the intruder asked for a light after being told he was at the wrong house, the man drew his gun and shot and killed him. This was ruled self-defense, despite the man claiming little fear for his life (he believed the man was reaching into his jacket while asking for a light, which he later admitted was likely a move to extract cigarettes) and expressed remorse for his actions to police at the scene. This man was never charged.
So in all of these cases, self-defense was used, and the shooter was not arrested. In none of these cases did the shooter behave like someone who was in fear for their life. So somewhere along the way, self-defense became a defense that had little to nothing to do with the shooter needing to prove or even demonstrate that he was in fear for their life, and it became something else entirely.
As I've said before, Zimmerman may have had racial motivation for being suspicious of Trayvon. And Sanford may have behaved differently had the victim been white. We'll never know.
But what this case needs to cause us to discuss is not race, but whether self-defense as a defense has grown far beyond the law's original intent. In the above cases (you can google them if you want) we see clear evidence of it being used successfully to remove people who shoot and kill others from prosecution, even when their words and actions clearly demonstrate they were not in fear for their lives. I think that it has actually evolved into deputizing everyone who owns a gun, because in these cases it seems that as long as the shooter can make a reasonable claim of wrong-doing against the victim, then the shooter's state of mind becomes irrelevant.
If we allow the "single-blow kill shot" to become the minimum criteria for that fear, then I can't really think of any situation in which some form of confrontation occurs where it isn't legal to kill the other person, claim self-defense, and not be charged.
I'd love to hear how it's the same. I'll hang up and listen.
You owe Christo like $11,000.
