[lbo-talk] Obama Speaks Out on Trayvon Martin Killing

[Wojtek S]

You are right.  I did not realize how different the "NE corridor" is
from the "flyover states."  I thought there is more reason out there,
but apparently there is not.  I just cannot see how the  the Castle
Doctrine laws are not a de facto license to kill anyone you do not
like.  What else the phrase " reasonably believes it is necessary to
do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"  mean if
not a license to shoot at will.  The Zimmermann case illustrates that
quite adequately - he and many before him - "reasonably believed" and
the cops and courts agreed with them.  If I am ever in Florida (which
I doubt because I typically do not travel outside the NE Corridor in
this country) I can shoot Mr. Zimmermann and claim that I "reasonably
believe" that he was about to harm me, because he had done so in the
past.  And it is a damn reasonable belief.  Only in Amerikkka this can
pass as a "legal doctrine."

PS. I realize that I am venting but the occasional realization of the
full extent how much this country is fucked up does this to me.

Wojtek

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Wojtek:
>
>
>> But still, you do not have "stand your ground" or
>> concealed weapon laws in the North.
>
>
> Here's a good summary of which states have Castle Doctrine laws:
>
> http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10797253-states-with-stand-your-ground-laws
>
> But you're wrong about concealed carry "shall issue" states: nearly the
> whole nation is that way now.  The wikipedia article has a (nice!) animated
> map showing the change in the last 30 years:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
>
> DC and Illinois are the only "no issue" places left, with Hawaii, New
> Jersey, and Maryland being effectively that way.
>
> I think this will be interesting to see what the Grand Jury says on this
> one.
>
> I found this article interesting as well:
>
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html
>
> <snip>
>
>  But the lawmakers who crafted the legislation in 2005 - former
>  Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley - said
>  the law doesn't need to be changed. They believe it has been
>  misapplied in the shooting death of Trayvon by a Sanford
>  crime-watch captain, George Zimmerman.
>
>  Zimmerman has not been charged because, police said, it appears
>  he acted in self-defense. The Seminole County state attorney's
>  office decided Tuesday to take the case before a grand jury.
>
>  "They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot
>  the kid," said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the
>  deadly force law in 2005. "He has no protection under my law."
>
>  Peaden and Baxley, R-Ocala, say their law is a self-defense act.
>  It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat from an
>  attacker and can meet "force with force." Nowhere does it say
>  that a person has a right to confront another.
>
>  The 911 tapes strongly suggest Zimmerman overstepped his bounds,
>  they say, when the Sanford neighborhood crime-watch captain said
>  he was following Trayvon and appeared to ignore a police request
>  to stay away.
>
>  "The guy lost his defense right then," said Peaden. "When he said
>  'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."
>
> </snip>
>
> --
>
> The question, for me, is why the police so quickly to declare this a
> self-defense issue; I hope that's one of the issues looked at in the Federal
> Civil Rights investigation.
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- 
Wojtek
http://wsokol.blogspot.com/