web analytics

The Trayvon Martin Killing: Why George Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claims Must Be Dismissed

George Zimmerman claimed he shot and killed Florida Teen Trayvon Martin in self defense after a 911 dispatcher advised him not to pursue the teen. He has yet to be charged for the youth's murder.

By now most Americans have heard about the senseless killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin and the growing debate over the “stand your ground” law currently enacted in 15 states in America. The controversial law basically promotes a “shoot first ask questions later” mentality to any citizen packing a gun. The way the law is spelled out in most cases is absent of any prerequisite for a shooter to actually establish exactly how and why they needed to defend themselves, but rather opens the door to establishing a grotesquely insane individual perceived threat claim. In short anybody encountering a person that resemble or embody the physical characteristics of stereo typed hoodlum, thug, or simply someone they personally feel threatened by, just may fall victim to unjustified homicide. Researching history on cases that have occurred with similar merits as the Martin teen killing, we find that courts have as a standard dismissed many of these shooting cases solely because Magistrates have failed to allow defendants to be judged by a jury of their peers, and simply dismissing most of these cases by not challenging a shooters claims of self-defense. The law allows for far to broad of an adjudication by courts in which often times results in killings like these never making it to trial. Unfortunately it seems that many states in our nation have replaced common sense with the wild-wild west indoctrination. The Martin teen killing and cases just like it are setting precedent which more than likely will spark an epidemic of shootings  in this country by individuals readied to enact vigilantism in an effort to resolve what they deem as problems plaguing their community, and in all actuality replacing trained law enforcement personnel professionally trained to serve and protect American Citizens. We must tread lightly on these social issues in that we don’t unofficially reconstruct first amendment rights by infringing on the right to bare arms, and at the same time we can’t simply legalize murder. “Stand your ground” may be necessary in communities in our nation with perpetuating crimes of violence, but such regulation should be held with extremely tight reigns while treating each occurrence on a case by case basis. With that being said George Zimmerman’s self-defense claims must fall flatly on its face for the following reasons:

1. The so-called Community Watch detail that he himself promoted was not recognized by his local police district which is a standard for such organizations Nation wide.

2. Zimmerman violated two fundamental principles of Community Watch tradition by (a). carrying a firearm while on watch duty, (b). by following Trayvon Martin, both of which are also standard operating procedures for this type of community development.

3. Zimmerman ignored a trained 911 dispatcher who advised him to not pursue the Martin Teen, and consequently he should be held accountable for any adverse incidents that occurred as a result of his failure to comply with sound advice from a trained professional.

4. During Zimmerman’s call to 911 he was in fact inside of his personal vehicle at the time, a safe environment from what he himself described as a potentially dangerous situation while giving details of alleged criminal activity, and had he remained inside his car the ensuing confrontation would have never been able to present itself, i.e. he would not have had to use his weapon. The fact that Zimmerman described to 911 that Martin allegedly had his hand in his waistband presented even more logic necessitating that he stay put.

5. The Martin Teen was in fact unarmed and Zimmerman’s description of a physical confrontation between he and Martin (even with the apparent contusions he somehow acquired) amounts to nothing more than a fist fight. The level of force that Zimmerman used to defend himself was extremely excessive when considering that he already knew that help was on its way as confirmed by the 911 dispatcher. He has failed miserably justifying the use of deadly force.

Moreover, in any “stand your ground” case the victim must be required and able to establish that the use of deadly force was not only necessary, but was done so in the face of mortal threat to their person. Fist fights in most jurisdiction are classified as misdemeanor offenses, and even police would not result to the use of lethal deadly force as their primary action to control a situation in a case that amounted to nothing more than common assault. “Stand your ground” cases must set as a standard that self-defense claimers should attempt to use force enabling for their immediate escape to safety, and that if such opportunity does not exist, as a policy to ensure public safety, the use of deadly force must be accompanied by absolute mortal threat, and lethal deadly force used in the face of explicit instruction from trained police personnel to remove one’s self from potential fatality prior to any conflict must never be allowed to stand.

 

 

The Peope’s Champion

I’m David Adams

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

George Zimmerman claimed he shot and killed Florida Teen Trayvon Martin in self defense after a 911 dispatcher advised him not to pursue the teen. He has yet to be charged for the youth's murder.

By now most Americans have heard about the senseless killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin and the growing debate over the “stand your ground” law currently enacted in 15 states in America. The controversial law basically promotes a “shoot first ask questions later” mentality to any citizen packing a gun. The way the law is spelled out in most cases is absent of any prerequisite for a shooter to actually establish exactly how and why they needed to defend themselves, but rather opens the door to establishing a grotesquely insane individual perceived threat claim. In short anybody encountering a person that resemble or embody the physical characteristics of stereo typed hoodlum, thug, or simply someone they personally feel threatened by, just may fall victim to unjustified homicide. Researching history on cases that have occurred with similar merits as the Martin teen killing, we find that courts have as a standard dismissed many of these shooting cases solely because Magistrates have failed to allow defendants to be judged by a jury of their peers, and simply dismissing most of these cases by not challenging a shooters claims of self-defense. The law allows for far to broad of an adjudication by courts in which often times results in killings like these never making it to trial. Unfortunately it seems that many states in our nation have replaced common sense with the wild-wild west indoctrination. The Martin teen killing and cases just like it are setting precedent which more than likely will spark an epidemic of shootings  in this country by individuals readied to enact vigilantism in an effort to resolve what they deem as problems plaguing their community, and in all actuality replacing trained law enforcement personnel professionally trained to serve and protect American Citizens. We must tread lightly on these social issues in that we don’t unofficially reconstruct first amendment rights by infringing on the right to bare arms, and at the same time we can’t simply legalize murder. “Stand your ground” may be necessary in communities in our nation with perpetuating crimes of violence, but such regulation should be held with extremely tight reigns while treating each occurrence on a case by case basis. With that being said George Zimmerman’s self-defense claims must fall flatly on its face for the following reasons:

1. The so-called Community Watch detail that he himself promoted was not recognized by his local police district which is a standard for such organizations Nation wide.

2. Zimmerman violated two fundamental principles of Community Watch tradition by (a). carrying a firearm while on watch duty, (b). by following Trayvon Martin, both of which are also standard operating procedures for this type of community development.

3. Zimmerman ignored a trained 911 dispatcher who advised him to not pursue the Martin Teen, and consequently he should be held accountable for any adverse incidents that occurred as a result of his failure to comply with sound advice from a trained professional.

4. During Zimmerman’s call to 911 he was in fact inside of his personal vehicle at the time, a safe environment from what he himself described as a potentially dangerous situation while giving details of alleged criminal activity, and had he remained inside his car the ensuing confrontation would have never been able to present itself, i.e. he would not have had to use his weapon. The fact that Zimmerman described to 911 that Martin allegedly had his hand in his waistband presented even more logic necessitating that he stay put.

5. The Martin Teen was in fact unarmed and Zimmerman’s description of a physical confrontation between he and Martin (even with the apparent contusions he somehow acquired) amounts to nothing more than a fist fight. The level of force that Zimmerman used to defend himself was extremely excessive when considering that he already knew that help was on its way as confirmed by the 911 dispatcher. He has failed miserably justifying the use of deadly force.

Moreover, in any “stand your ground” case the victim must be required and able to establish that the use of deadly force was not only necessary, but was done so in the face of mortal threat to their person. Fist fights in most jurisdiction are classified as misdemeanor offenses, and even police would not result to the use of lethal deadly force as their primary action to control a situation in a case that amounted to nothing more than common assault. “Stand your ground” cases must set as a standard that self-defense claimers should attempt to use force enabling for their immediate escape to safety, and that if such opportunity does not exist, as a policy to ensure public safety, the use of deadly force must be accompanied by absolute mortal threat, and lethal deadly force used in the face of explicit instruction from trained police personnel to remove one’s self from potential fatality prior to any conflict must never be allowed to stand.

 

 

The Peope’s Champion

I’m David Adams

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “The Trayvon Martin Killing: Why George Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claims Must Be Dismissed”

  1. Kaseyandsoph says:

    Stand your ground is not relevant. Its lgal to use force to defend yourself in all 50 states at the point someone is throwing your head into the sidewalk.

Leave a Reply

- See more at: http://thepeopleschampion.me/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=side-tab#sthash.HEuco14y.dpuf