In Florida, one can legally stalk
someone until that person out of fear stands his ground and confronts
you. Then when you become fearful of great bodily harm, you can shoot
and kill him. Sarcastic as it sounds, I'm serious.
Based on what I've been reading about
the Florida “stand your ground” law, and (I assume) the judges
instructions to the jury based upon it, Zimmerman's initial stalking
of Trayvon Martin because he was a black kid not known in that
neighborhood and Zimmerman's disobeying of police instructions
became irrelevant as soon as Martin stood his ground and made
Zimmerman feel threatened. The law only protects people who stand
their ground with a gun.
I hope the Justice Department will consider the same tactic they had to use in the past in order to overcome the injustice handed down by southern juries, i.e. filing civil rights charges against Zimmerman. This seems like almost a textbook case of Martin having his civil rights violated....the right to walk to the store and back to his girlfriend's house with a box of candy without being profiled and stalked by some wannabe cop.
4 comments:
Well, Harvard Law professor and noted criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz agrees with you that there needs to be changes to the Stand Your Ground law.
However, he also stated that the prosecutor in the case needs to be disbarred for her actions (and lack of actions). He believes the case should never have come to trial and, when it did, should have been halted by a directed verdict due to lack of evidence.
While Al Sharpton thinks like you do that the Federal government should get involved, Dershowitz thinks there is little chance of that happening and, if it did, little chance of success.
Call me silly, but I am more likely to look favorably upon the legal opinion of a Harvard Law Professor than that of a Baptist minister, racial activist and talk show host. Or football players, for that matter who seem to think it was a bad verdict.
Bob, Your introduction of Al Sharpton and then your dismissal of him as a "racial activist" says more about you than it does the subject at hand.
Perhaps you would like to define "racial activist" for us?
I was actually quoting, but mis-quoted, something I found on line. It should have been "civil rights activist."
The point, however, was that I prefer to thoughtfully consider the opinions of a skilled professional like Dershowitz in matters such as this.
Does the correction to "civil rights activist" cause his opinion to become more valid?
The introduction of Al Sharpton, the current bugaboo of racists everywhere, into a discussion in which I never cited him is a perfect example of the same cultural racism which the Zimmmerman verdict exemplified.
One need not be a "racial activist" to recognize and be outraged at injustice.
We can be thankful Dershowitz doesn't have any more influence over the Justice Department than he does over State.
But congratulations on finding a skilled professional East coast elitist, and a lawyer to boot, that you can agree with.
Post a Comment