Zimmerman/Martin Case

[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 - https://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/11/26/20385281.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.

 

[JimLes]

I absolutely have every right to stop someone from leaving my house with my property.

Again, how do you figure your material possessions are worth more than human life? The responsibility IS yours. You're the one holding the gun. You are being asked to make that decision. Don't weasel out and say that the thief made that decision. You are making it. Do you believe it's morally right to take a human life if you don't need to?

 

[Gameface]

Again, how do you figure your material possessions are worth more than human life? The responsibility IS yours. You're the one holding the gun. You are being asked to make that decision. Don't weasel out and say that the thief made that decision. You are making it. Do you believe it's morally right to take a human life if you don't need to?

My material possessions are not worth more than a human life.

 

[Gameface]

If someone comes into my home by force they have made the decision to imitate force against me and my family. If they chose to take my possessions by force I have every right to stop them by the use of force.

If someone was carrying my DVD player out of my house I would tell them to stop. If they did not stop I would physically attempt to stop them. If they physically tried to resist me I would escalate my use of force to include the use of a firearm. If they simply tried to run away I would not shoot them in the back, but I would try to prevent them from running away by placing myself between them and their escape route. If they chose to attack me, gun in my hand telling them to stop, I would shoot them.

 

[JimLes]

If someone was carrying my DVD player out of my house I would tell them to stop. If they did not stop I would physically attempt to stop them. If they physically tried to resist me I would escalate my use of force to include the use of a firearm. If they simply tried to run away I would not shoot them in the back, but I would try to prevent them from running away by placing myself between them and their escape route. If they chose to attack me, gun in my hand telling them to stop, I would shoot them.

Why not just let them leave and call the cops? That's what the cops are for. You fighting the guy is just unnecessary and pointless vigilantism. One of you will get hurt and you still may not get your DVD player.

 

[Gameface]

Why not just let them leave and call the cops? That's what the cops are for. You fighting the guy is just unnecessary and pointless vigilantism. One of you will get hurt and you still may not get your DVD player.

First, the cops are not going to investigate the burglary of a DVD player. Second, I don't have to allow people to take my things. Why do you think I do?

 

[franklin]

Again, how do you figure your material possessions are worth more than human life? The responsibility IS yours. You're the one holding the gun. You are being asked to make that decision. Don't weasel out and say that the thief made that decision. You are making it. Do you believe it's morally right to take a human life if you don't need to?

I think we should construct a system with no deterrents and watch it quickly flail into lawlessness. Mad max society is so much better at valuing life.

I call Eli. Which one of you cuties wants to play Solara for a couple days?

 

[franklin]

Why not just let them leave and call the cops? That's what the cops are for. You fighting the guy is just unnecessary and pointless vigilantism. One of you will get hurt and you still may not get your DVD player.

I have rational discussions with criminals all the time. I work with a committee to disarm all prison guards and pass out pamphlets explaining to the inmates the importance of peace. I don't get why these violent Americans have to use guns to protect against criminals without first attempting rational persuasion.

 

[JimLes]

First, the cops are not going to investigate the burglary of a DVD player.

Because, shockingly, they also don't think a DVD player to be very valuable. Certainly not worth getting into physical altercations with someone.

Second, I don't have to allow people to take my things. Why do you think I do?

Because it's going to escalate. Do you figure a thief will simply give you your DVD back when confronted? Or they won't hit back if hit?

 

[Gameface]

Why not just let them leave and call the cops? That's what the cops are for. You fighting the guy is just unnecessary and pointless vigilantism. One of you will get hurt and you still may not get your DVD player.

Do you acknowledge that the burglar is the one initiating force against me?

Let's explore a hypothetical.

Guy knocks on your front door. You and your family are in the living room watching TV. You answer the door, the guy says he's there to take your TV and possibly some other things he finds if he's interested in them. You then, not waiting a confrontation and not being a vigilante let him in. He's having a little trouble disconnecting the cables so he tells you to get over there and unhook them or he'll cut them loose. You go over and remove all the wires for him. On his way out he sees an expensive urn that holds the remains of your mother. Tells you his arms are full and says that you need to carry it out to his car for him. You're a little hesitant, those remains mean a lot to you and the rest of your family. You tell him he can't have the urn. He says if you don't bring the urn he's going to kick your daughter in the face. Well, we don't want violence so there's nothing to do but take the urn out to his car for him.

Do I have your ideal response to a robbery correct, or at some point would it have been okay to resist him?

 

[Scat]

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.

Keep in mind that the trigger was not pulled until a person was physically assaulted. This whole situation could have gone the other direction had a gun not been in play. I wonder what everyone's take would be if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and got his head bashed in to the point where he was comatose or dead because he confronted Martin?