More on Martin vs. Zimmerman

I previously made the case that George Zimmerman lost his right to "stand your ground" defense when he chose to leave his car and confront Trayvon Martin.

Today more information came out that bolstered my initial argument.  I won't pick and choice quotes.  I'll give the whole paragraph to provide the context of the article:

The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him. The report was written on March 13, nearly a month before Zimmerman's eventual arrest.

Serino logic follows the line of thinking that I used.  If  Zimmerman simply stayed put in his car then the whole incident could have been avoided.  I've also doubted that murder is the correct charge.  When a friend initially asked me what I thought, I said I'm not familiar with Florida law but it sounds like a possible manslaughter charge.

I haven't had the time to read up more on the case.  There is still a lot more that we don't know and probably won't know.  No eyewitnesses or video exists to help shed light on the facts.

If new evidence emerges or I find more articles clarifying things, I'll rethink my current line of thinking.

Did George Zimmerman Stand His Ground?

Note: I wrote this blog post before the charges were brought against George Zimmerman.  I haven't read the available updated reasons why charges were filed or what new evidence emerged.  I still felt that my reasoning is valid so I'm posting this entry.

Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman killed him. That's all we know. It's probably all we will ever know.

Naturally there is outrage over Martin's death. Every politician, including President Obama, chimed in with a take. I thought the President's words were a bit over the top in saying Martin is what his son would look like...if he had one. I digress.

On one side, people say that Zimmerman acted with racial motives. Other say Zimmer acted within Florida state laws. The laws are called "stand your ground laws" which allow a victim to use deadly force in self defense. A victim is under no obligation to attempt to flee; thus the popular name to the law.

This much is clear. Zimmer shot Martin.  Zimmer claims Martin attack and beat him so he shot in self defense. The other known fact is that Zimmer called 911 from inside his vehicle.  When he reported what he deemed suspicious youth, the 911 operator told him police are on the way and instructed him to stay put. Zimmerman ignored instructions.

In getting out of his car and confronting Martin, I believe that Zimmerman lost his legal right to stand his ground. Had he waited for police, who were on the way, Martin would probably still be alive. Had Zimmerman stayed put, he kept his right intact and then would be in a legal self defense mode IF Martin actually attacks him.

Here I have to throw in some common sense and conjecture. I'm assuming that Zimmerman felt he did the right thing when he confronted Martin.  I also assume Martin was also just walking back from the store with no ill intent. Once Zimmerman confronted Martin, I can see a scuffle breaking out. It was in this confrontation that Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin.

The question then becomes simply was Zimmerman justified in shooting? Is it a legitimate self defense case?

To answer the question of justifiable homicide,  the whole situation needs consideration. Zimmerman supposedly was on duty as a neighborhood watch. He was just a citizen on patrol. He was not an off duty officer working an extra security job. Zimmerman's role is limited to observe and report an crimes or suspicious activities. He did the right thing in calling the police. Whether the call was warranted or not is moot. The 911 dispatcher told him to stay in the vehicle. He didn't. He chose to get out and assess the situation first hand. He lost any the right to self defense when he chose to confront Martin. He went from passive observation to active confrontation.

The only scenario I see giving Zimmerman legal protection is if Martin attempted to get into the car or began attacking the car. The law is stand your ground.  Getting out of the car when police are the way is not standing your ground. No person or property was in immediate danger.

Unless more evidences or a witness emerges, I cannot see this case as a self defense case under the stand your ground doctrine. When Zimmer stepped out of the car and toward Martin, he went from defensive position over into an offensive one.

My only question is this a case of murder or manslaughter? I'll have to think that one through some more.

Pat Robertson Legalize It Super-PAC

If Stephen Colbert can create a Super PAC, Making A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, I can create my own Super PAC.

I'm an advocate for the legalization of marijuana and hash. I even advocate drug testing for THC limited to small cut off...only to determine if a person is high on the job or violating driving while intoxicate laws. Currently the cut off for THC is so low it can detect use as long as 4-6 weeks after use. The cut off point of detection can be raised to indicate more recent use.

While it appears that meth is the Mexican drug cartels money driver, weed remains a big part of the profit. In legalizing it, a vital cog in their profits is removed.

The war on drugs is pretty much failed effort. Fareed Zakaria, who I consider one of the most pragmatic contemporary thinkers, wrote an excellent piece on the failed drug war in "Incarceration Nation." I highly recommend the article.

None other than social conservative televangelist Pat Robertson believes in legalized marijuana.

Zakaria is a pragmatic but somewhat left of center thinker. Robertson is a social conservative and one of societies harshest critics. They are from different sides of political spectrum. Yet both agree in the legalization of marijuana.

The topic certainly is worth discussion. Money used to enforce marijuana laws can put to use elsewhere. A sin tax on marijuana also could put to use toward education, mental health and enforcement of other drug laws.

I'm not an advocate of legalizing all drugs. Crack, cocaine, heroine and other hard drugs remain a blight on society. Will they ever be eradicated? No. However limited funds of drug enforcement could be focused on worse drugs than marijuana.

Obama and The Quran Burnings

I have complete outrage at President Obama for sending a letter of apology to Afghan president Karzai for the Quran burnings. It was a politically weak move. It was also unnecessary. There was absolutely no need to write the letter.

The letter did nothing to quell or satisfy the anger of the offended. The radical Islamist and their followers still attacked US targets and rioted. Worse yet, Karzai,nor any other official, has not apologized for the US deaths.

The best move, instead of apologizing, would have been to state that an investigation was underway. Then go through the motions of an investigation and let the issue die.

If it was up to me, and I'm sure this crossed someone's mind, I would have burned a few Bibles too and mixed in those ashes with the Quran ashes. Then I would have blamed it on an unknown officer and his anti-religious views.

Teachers Bedding Students

The headline of teachers bedding underage students is becoming more common. Both male and female students seem to think it's okay to take sexual advantage of underage teens.

Why would an adult want to take a child, yes sickos 17 is still a child, to bed?

Beyond that, the student-teacher bond is one of trust. Not only trust between the teacher and student but between the teacher and parents, schools and community. Outside of the home, teachers may be the first real encounter with non-related adults. When that trust is gone, where does that leave the still developing mind of an adolescent and teen?

Teen boys and girls are usually a ball of raging hormones. They are starting to develop physically and becoming curious about sexuality. Who are we kidding? They will at some point seek to satisfy curious feelings. Some teens more than others.

However, there is a reason age of consent laws exist. While the teens might be raging with hormones and new found sexuality, adults should know better than to take advantage. Yet, for reasons, that escape me there is always a teacher, coach, priest or someone willing to break those laws. A teen is still to young, even at 17, to deal with the experience, maturity and sleaziness of an adult. Age of consent laws exist to deal with those folks.