|
I had written a comment under one of the Orlando Sentinel articles about this, and later I emailed one of their staff columnists, Beth Kassab, about it.
Same argument as Tom Servo's, same argument as the FL (R) legislator's: "Stand Your Ground," and for that matter, basic self-defense protections, don't typically attach to scenarios where the shooter initiated the conflict.
Possible exceptions would include instances where two parties square off, then one says, "Sorry, I don't want to do this," and makes a concerted, obvious effort to disengage and retreat. That party might get back some right to self-defense. But generally, initiators, or mutual combatants, give up the right.
I pointed out to Ms Kassab that without a stand your ground law, how do we decide which exceptions to make? Should a woman have to attempt to outrun an armed rapist? Should a handicapped or elderly person be expected to evade a young attacker? If not, then why should anybody have to find out if he can outrun an assailant, or worse yet, a bullet?
I emailed Ms Kassab two days ago. She has not yet responded. If she does, I'll recap what she has to say.
But going back to the case in question:
Hard to see how Zimmerman would have been threatened if he had stayed in his vehicle, and not dismounted to follow Martin, particularly after the dispatcher advised him not to do so.
Recent articles indicate that 911 recordings, finally released, reveal the sound of Martin pleading for his life before the gunshot, and the pleas ending abruptly with the gunshot.
If that is true, I think Zimmerman is toast. While we are all not supposed to rush to judgement, I suspect this is a case that should be prosecuted.
|