Even though by now it’s abundantly clear, based on witness statements, that Stand Your Ground had no bearing on this case, the narrative continues:
- Rep, Dennis Baxley feels the need to explain why he wrote it, despite the fact that his law plays no role on this case.
- USA Today thinks it’s a recipe for tragedy.
- The Tampa Bay Times thinks the law needs to be ditched before the next tragedy.
- Bloomberg says the gun industry is to blame. But remember, MAIG isn’t a gun control group.
This stopped being about Trayvon Martin days ago. The media is now in a full court press to blame the laws, despite the current witness testimony that essentially reveal that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting occurred. Duty to retreat is not at issue here. It can’t be at issue. Zimmerman had no means of retreat. The entire question, as I have said since the beginning, will hinge on whether Zimmerman is faultless.
9 thoughts on “The Narrative Continues”
Even if Zimmerman is found not guilty or justifed without going to trial this won’t be going away anytime soon. I let myself get drawn in by the media and I rushed to judgement. I’m really wondering if we’ll ever truly know what happened that night.
I don’t recall you rushing to judgement on this. Zimmerman was still extremely unwise in his actions. I still think it’s reasonable to say this didn’t need to happen if Zimmerman had chosen the path of wisdom and waited for police to arrive.
The only facts that have changed for me is that perhaps Zimmerman had some objective reason for suspicion of Treyvon, since he isn’t the angel the family’s PR campaign has made him out to be. But that’s only because grounds could exist for it. Whether he did or not, we don’t really know. We may never know.
The self-defense claim hinges on something no one else saw, which probably means Zimmerman’s self-defense claim stands. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, if he got indicted, it would be a travesty of justice, based on the evidence. But the police may be sitting on evidence that changes my mind about that, like if someone saw Zimmerman start the affray.
It was pretty early in the process..I chalked it up to Zimmerman being a dumbass wannabe cop..Which may still be the case..But I realized when the major talking heads picked it up and were basically making calls for mob justice (as they continue to do) and they were so sure of his guilt but I read all the same links they did and I was back to not being sure with all the evidence that was out at the time..More and more “leaks” keep coming out that lead me to believe that another agency should definately review the case.
The media has done a spectacular job of spinning this. Even looking at the pics of Martin and Zimmerman show an obvious bias. I think, at this point, either way it goes will end badly. With the black panthers pushing a bounty for Zimmerman if he does go to trial and is found not guilty or if it’s deemed to be a good shoot and there is no trial things are going to blow up.
Are you sure you’re not my clone, or something? That’s pretty much how my view of the whole thing went, too.
The media spin on this has been ridiculous, and dangerous.
Tampa Bay Times:
“In the center of it all is the indefensible ‘stand your ground’ law. Florida lawmakers passed this first-of-its-kind law in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association and over the objections of law enforcement.”
What an utter lie. In 2005 Florida was in the minority of states that still had a duty to retreat. In 2005 Florida joined the majority in having no duty to retreat before deadly force could be applied.
Assuming arguendo that Florida still had a duty to retreat in effect when Zimmerman shot Martin, it would be of no consequences as Zimmerman could not retreat while he was having his ass handed to him by Martin.
Zimmerman acted in defense of himself out of reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death. The result of the grand jury will be another Duke Lacrosse Team moment for the media.
The “no retreat” rule has nothing to do with what either side says happened in the case. One side says the dead 17-year-old was an innocent boy murdered by a vigilante. If so, the shooter is guilty and there is no issue as to the retreat rule.
The shooter and a witness say that the shooting happened after the 17-year-old attacked the shooter, knocked him to the ground, sat on his chest, beat him in the head, broke his nose, and banged his head against the ground. If that version is true, retreat was not possible, and the shooting was self-defense. Indeed, if the 2nd version is true, “retreat” would not have been possible.
Regardless, the “no retreat” rule has nothing to do with what either side says happened in the case.
It gets worse. Check out this claptrap by Krugman.
Because the only possible explanation for these laws are ignorant yahoos or giant corporations looking to screw people and make money.
Even if Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense stands, he will probably be sued civilly. And before one exclaims he can’t for self-defense. That might be true in FL. The parents might not be able to sue him for shooting Martin. But I’d wager a good lawyer could finagle a lawsuit not against the shooting, but against negligence of Zimmerman’s actions as a block watch captain (violating policy, guidelines, etc) in a fashion that contributed to their sons death.
What we have here is either a) a needless and senseless killing or b) foolish actions that led to a need to defend oneself. Neither is very commendable…
Getting around it is easy… they can just sue in federal court where there is no such immunity.
Comments are closed.