March 28, 2012

Dopey Letter(s) of the Week has already -- and predictably -- opined on the Trayvon Martin case, thus opening the way for the expected dopey letter writers. First up is Scott Washburn of Philly who writes

If I understand the Florida "stand your ground" law correctly, if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, he would have been perfectly justified in shooting George Zimmerman, just as Zimmerman claims to have been justified in shooting Martin ("Debating 'castle' doctrine," Tuesday). Martin's life obviously was in danger.

Well, you don't understand the law correctly, Scott. Martin would have a lot less of a justification for firing on Zimmerman than the reverse. Consider the relevant portions of the Florida law:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Zimmerman merely following Martin hardly rises to the level of "reasonably believing" in "imminent death or great bodily harm." On the other hand, if current reports are accurate in that Martin attacked Zimmerman first, Zimmerman's claims of self defense may have merit -- based on the above ... and on this section:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Even if Zimmerman is considered the "aggressor" by his initial pursuit of Martin ("Initially provokes the use of force against himself"), there's that highlighted exception. Reports say that Zimmerman had ceased his pursuit of Martin and was returning to his truck. It is here that Martin allegedly attacked him. Part "a" above would appear to be what allows the action Zimmerman ultimately took -- shooting Martin because Martin was beating the snot out of him.

Next, Anthony J. Frascino of Swedesboro (NJ) writes:

African Americans must realize the sad truth. Old white men are passing draconian gun laws to protect their own. Florida adopted an NRA-backed gun law called "stand your ground" to make it easier for citizens to kill you if you're perceived as a threat to their survival. To many of these folks, any black face is intimidating. So any vigilante confronting you can murder you, even if you get the upper hand and don't possess a firearm.

Hmm. Usually when one says "draconian gun laws" he means gun control. Frascino seems to be saying that laws like "Stand Your Ground" are racist because it gives "old white men" an excuse to kill black people. Which is actually pretty hilarious since the aforementioned gun control actually has racist roots. "Stand your ground" applies to everyone, whereas gun control laws historically only benefitted the well-off and whites, and currently only benefit the lawless. Just take a gander at how "great" gun control laws work in big inner cities now. Whom do they hurt most?

As for the rest of Frascino's nonsense, I direct him to the appropriate sections of the Florida law noted above in response to the first letter writer.

Posted by Hube at March 28, 2012 05:09 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

It's funny, with all of these folks complaining about SYG, I haven't seen hardly any actually QUOTE the relevant portions of Florida law and use it to support their position.

Why, it's almost as if they don't want to be bothered by silly things like facts, or what the Florida statutes actually say. Facts don't fit the liberal narrative.

Posted by: mike w. at March 29, 2012 05:43 PM

I found this obscure redneck site while googling my name. I bet y'all sleep with a rifle between you and your wives. Sounds like a phallic symbol because you don't measure up!

Posted by: Anthony J. Frascino at April 3, 2012 08:08 PM

Makes about as much sense as your idiot letter, Ant-nee.

And nice narcissism there, Googling your name. Cretin.

Posted by: Hube at April 3, 2012 08:19 PM