Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

a-ha

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/

...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."

...even if the shooter initiated the contact?

This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.

--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?

So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?

When I read stories like this my first reaction is always, "There's got to be more to this story." Usually there is. Sometimes it's -- 

[kingyak]

And it just keeps getting better:
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

  sounds like a sad duck call in my head.  "HWWWWaaaah"

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

And it just keeps getting better:
http://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-watch-shooting-probe-reveals-questionable-police-conduct-032002155--abc-news.html

According to law enforcement sources who heard Zimmerman's call to a non-emergency police number, he told a dispatcher "these a..holes always get away."

Zimmerman described Martin as suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and walking slowly in the rain, police later told residents at a town hall.

A dispatcher told him to wait for a police cruiser, and not leave his vehicle.

But about a minute later, Zimmerman left his car wearing a red sweatshirt and pursued Martin on foot between two rows of townhouses, about 70 yards from where the teen was going.

Lee said Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin did not of itself constitute a crime.

Well if that doesn't scream self-defense, I don't know what does.

The procedural fuckery kinda makes me wonder if the PD isn't interested in highlighting this law as much as anything. That's the kind of shit they'd do around here, anyways.

[navkat]

a-ha

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/cnn-legal-contributor-on-fl-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-law-moves-castle-doctrine-to-the-street/

...The police have said Mr. [George] Zimmerman, when he was questioned, indicated that he was acting in self-defense, that [Martin] had attacked him and that he had the right to protect himself with a weapon. And Ashleigh, I have to tell you, Florida is one of about 15 states in the United States that have something called a 'Stand Your Ground' law.... And it's very easy to assert self-defense in Florida. This law was signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 2005, and it changed the law in Florida. It said basically that even if you're outside of your home, if you think you're under attack and you have to protect yourself, you can use deadly physical force if you're in fear. You don't have to run or retreat."

...even if the shooter initiated the contact?

This law is fucking begging for shit like this. You know what also says you don't have to run or retreat? Not having a law saying you have to run or retreat. Or here's a thought--write a homicide statute that includes: "Except in cases of self-defense" without the fucking laundry list of situations where it's cool to waste someone. I'm fairly sure we all know what self-defense is, and I'm quite positive it ain't some sketch-ball Neighborhood Watch fucker rolling up on a "suspicious black teenager" carrying skittles and an iced tea.

--Trip-0, you were wondering about why some laws are vaguely worded?

So all you have to do is have a concealed firearm, start a fight with someone, and you can get away with as many murders as you want?

If you're a white guy in a gated community in a red state, yeah.

I came here to say this.

[navkat]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

Sad but true.

[Doktor Howl]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

There are two kinds of government:

1.  This is how people are.  What do we do about it?

2.  This is how things should be.  How do we change human nature to make it so?

Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

There are two kinds of government:

1.  This is how people are.  What do we do about it?

2.  This is how things should be.  How do we change human nature to make it so?

Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.

Very well put.

ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.

[kingyak]

The problem is that every time we've tried anarchism/socialism/objectivism [circle one], it's been in a watered down form. As soon as we implement it in the pure form as the unicorns from Xanos explained it to us, everyone will shit rainbows.

[Doktor Howl]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

There are two kinds of government:

1.  This is how people are.  What do we do about it?

2.  This is how things should be.  How do we change human nature to make it so?

Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.

Very well put.

ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.

#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you."   Perfection is not required; force is.  This is the language monkeys understand.

What varies is the constraints.  They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy State^TM.  Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.

Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

There are two kinds of government:

1.  This is how people are.  What do we do about it?

2.  This is how things should be.  How do we change human nature to make it so?

Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.

Very well put.

ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.

#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you."   Perfection is not required; force is.  This is the language monkeys understand.

What varies is the constraints.  They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy State^TM.  Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.

Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.

I want to say that one of the founding fathers said something along the lines of that if people sacrifice freedom for security then they'll have neither. It probably works the other way around, too.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Had to bump when I came across this here:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/florida-teen-killed-by-community-watch-member-28656689.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fnews-26797925%252Fflorida-teen-killed-by-community-watch-member-28656689.html

I wasn't aware there was this much of a public outcry. Everyone I've asked about it had no idea what was happening. But it's good to know the Miami PD is being looked at for what is obiously some bullshit. Although I doubt much will come out of that.

Also, his family says he isn't racist. That's hilarious. Do you figure they really believe that and, beyond that, is that the allegation they really want to be tackling?

[Doktor Howl]

No matter how in love I am with the idea of an anarchist utopia, shit like this always proves it to be worthless as anything but a thought experiment. Even with a pretty restrictive "democratic front" government in place, people think just because they put a fence around some shit and stand inside, they get to suspend all ethics and responsibility.

Seconded. A world that can function without government is an important dream, but until we fix the IMPOSSIBLE problem of human dickery, it's a pretty bad idea.

That isn't to say any form of government is particularly brilliant, but they at least try(?) to stop(?) most(?) of us from treating each other too poorly(?).

There are two kinds of government:

1.  This is how people are.  What do we do about it?

2.  This is how things should be.  How do we change human nature to make it so?

Anarchist utopias fall under #2, alongside communism and free market idealists.

Very well put.

ETA: Personally, I feel like #1 is much more realistic, but I'm (probably irrationally) opposed to the idea of having to follow other peoples rules. Sort of a "if nobody is perfect, why do I have to listen to you?
On the other hand, the chances of changing basic human nature is so incredibly remote that anarchy basically entails advocating an impossible system.
No perfect system= evidence of how order doesn't dominate disorder.

#1 is more realistic, because it says "Act within these constraints, or we'll fucking shoot you."   Perfection is not required; force is.  This is the language monkeys understand.

What varies is the constraints.  They may be as simple as "Don't murder people and don't take their shit", or it may be "Speak not against the Holy State^TM.  Obviously, some are more desirable than others, but no significant society that doesn't rely on force has ever survived.

Incidentally, as given in the "farmer's account" in The Federalist Papers, if you take that threat away, people will instantly obtain or create a new one, because most people have at least some idea of how primate politics function.

I want to say that one of the founding fathers said something along the lines of that if people sacrifice freedom for security then they'll have neither. It probably works the other way around, too.

That was actually an English guy named Lord Acton.  Ben Franklin just yoinked it.