Last week President Obama weighed in again on the Trayvon Martin episode. Sadly, most of what he said was wrong, both literally and ethically.
Pace the president, the Zimmerman case was not about Stand Your Ground laws. It was not a white-on-black episode. The shooting involved a Latino of mixed heritage in a violent altercation with a black youth.
Is it ethical for the president to weigh in on a civil-rights case apparently being examined by his own Justice Department? The president knows that if it is true that African-American males are viewed suspiciously, it is probably because statistically they commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. If that were not true, they might well be given no more attention as supposed suspects than is accorded to white, Asian, or Latino youths. Had George Zimmerman been black, he would have been, statistically at least, more likely to have shot Trayvon Martin — and statistically likewise less likely to have been tried.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
If Travon Martin was killed in Afghanistan, Obama wouldn't even know his name.
Everyone says that Stand Your Ground laws had nothing to do with this case. It really doesn't matter that it wasn't brought up in the trial by either the defense or prosecution. The fact that the stand your ground law was part of the jury instructions was enough. If the Stand your ground law wasn't part of the case, why was it included in the jury instructions?
We do not have SYG here in Maryland. I will invoke it's use if needed. Better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6.
2:02-The way I understand it SYG was one of several "if's" in the jury instructions that give reason for GZ to be justified in using deadly force. Since nothing applicable to SYG wasn't presented by either side they just ruled it out. They had to rule out all the other "if's" as well and just concentrate on the "if" (traditional self defense)that was the whole basis of the defense in other words the "if" that was most applied to the evidence they heard.
I also understand it is standard for the jury instructions to include it in any type of self defense or justifiable homicide case. Defense fought to keep it out due to it's uselessness or something along those lines.
6:13-Now if you are in your own home you don't have a duty to retreat so some are claiming MD is a SYG state.
I guess the morons want the residents to try and run out the door if someone is breaking into their home!
2:02-The section on duty to retreat was added to the jury instructions in 2005, pursuant to the passage of the SYG law. Prior to that time, there was an instruction requiring retreat if possible.
That particular section is one of two on the general subject, and there’s no direction in the Supreme Court’s site for jury instructions that it’s only to be given if applicable (as there is with many of the other clauses), so it appears to be required for any self defense case. So, I guess you could say it originated with the SYG law, but without it, there’d be a duty to retreat. Under the prior instruction, though, the duty to retreat only applied if was possible and you could do it safely, both unlikely here, so it appears the use of force would still have been permissible.
In plain English-Standard boiler room jury instructions for any self defense case.
Post a Comment