Friday, July 19, 2013

If I'd been in Zimmerman's shoes, I'd be in prison today

This is an unlikely scenario, because I’m not civic-minded enough to join a neighborhood watch like Zimmerman did, but:  Had I been in George Zimmerman’s place on that rainy night in Sanford, Florida, there’s zero chance that I get the acquittal he did.  Facts in evidence:

 
1)  Just look at me, for fuck’s sake.
 


2)  I would have shot Martin before he ever reached me.

 
And no, I'm not a bloodthirsty racist.  Hear me out, goddammit.

Had I had time, and an inkling of the fact that Martin was going to start a physical fight, I would have announced “I have a weapon”, or maybe “I’m armed, stay back.”  If he kept coming, I would have had reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.  The last thing someone who’s carrying concealed wants to do is get into a wrestling match, particularly with someone younger and faster than them.

Maybe you think that’s chicken-shit.  Maybe you think I should try a flying backheel, like Jackie Chan.  That’s pretty retarded, sir.  If you’re carrying, you have a responsibility to your family, if no one else, to prevent someone from taking your weapon from you and killing you with it.  If you don’t like that line of reasoning, I recommend taking it up with Roderick Scott, and listening to some of these 15minute seminars.

So there would be no wounds, no recordings of screams, no debate over whose screams they were and who was punching whom in the nose.  These were points that the entire Zimmerman case hinged upon, and I would have had recourse to none of them.


3)  I’m neither white-Hispanic (like Zimmerman) nor African American (like Roderick Scott).  Well, I suppose I am African American, but my ancestors were in the first wave of emigration out of Africa – the group that interbred with Neanderthal.  I’m Neanderthal-American.


4)  I would have used something that would have punched bigger holes in the target.
5)  I probably would have fired multiple times, not just once.

 
People don’t just fall over, or fly backward, when shot, Bruce Willis movies notwithstanding.  I once shot a deer that continued to run for over half a mile, only to find that I’d hit it in the heart – right in the *%$#ing heart – with a 12 gauge slug.  So chances are Martin would have kept on coming, and I would have kept on shooting.

If you take a concealed carry course (and you would have to have taken one to be in Zimmerman’s situation), they’ll tell you that anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice.

 
6)  I’m 6 foot 2 and 210 pounds.  (And no, this doesn’t mean I’d like to wrestle random strangers for my firearm.)

So there I’d stand, a hulking 210 pound white-Neanderthal man with a gun, standing over a dead young man of color with 2 rather large holes in his chest, and not a mark on me.  I’d be trying to sharpen my toothbrush into a shiv right now in the hopes of surviving my next trip to the yard.

That’s why I’ll never join a neighborhood watch.  I don’t care so much for my neighborhood that I’d risk putting my family through years of hell, and risking their lives for years afterward at the hands of a mob.  It's good that we have men like Zimmerman -- he's a better citizen than I am.

63 comments:

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I couldn't tell before but those are guns and gun magazines!!!

Gun Magazines!! The horror!!

lol.

KCFleming said...

That's why I did not join our neighborhood watch.

When these cases happen in the future, the survivor is just gonna hide the body and run like hell and hope no one can identify you.

Call the cops? Hell, no.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

The witch-hunt sends ... the wrong signal doesn't begin to describe how wrong this whole thing has been.

But the race hustles are not satisfied until they get theirs.

ndspinelli said...

There would have been no shooting. Any kid would run away as fast as they can.

Shouting Thomas said...

I live in the region in which Al Sharpton set off his previous insane stink bomb, the Tawana Brawley fiasco.

How did the media get suckered by Sharpton again?

They might have known that the SOB doesn't bother with fact checking.

The NY Times was shocked to discover that their "white racist" was, in fact, Hispanic!

Duped by Sharpton again!

test said...

I had always assumed the picture was not you.

edutcher said...

TMI!

Waaaayyyy TMI!

But, like it or not, it was the same way in San Francisco in the 1850s.

Or Philadelphia in 1776.

Somebody had to step up.

test said...

I don't think it a given you'd be in jail. The facts you cited made the Zimmerman case a no-brainer to acquit, but there still would have been no evidence to convict you.

Definitily a tougher case though.

bagoh20 said...

Jeantel, how did you steal Pastafarian's blogger ID?

And welcome, we've been talking about the case and maybe you can tell us about Trayvon. On the phone that night, did you hear him singing:

"Don't you dare stare, you betta move
Don't ever compare
Me to the rest that'll all get sliced and diced
Competition's payin the price

I'm gonna knock you out (HUUUH!!!)
Mama said knock you out (HUUUH!!!)"

bagoh20 said...

Oh, and BTW Jeantel, I like the new extensions. That's hot, girl!

Pastafarian said...

Marshal -- no, it's not really me. I hate to break all the womenfolks' hearts that way, though.

I only wish I could be that suave and debonair.

Re. acquittal: You're probably right, it's not a given. I'd put the odds at 80%.

About half the country is in emotional meltdown over Zimmerman being acquitted. Imagine what the percentage would be with my set of circumstances. My attorney would have to pluck prospective jurors from a pretty small subset of the pool.

harrogate said...

Marshal, you wrote this independent clause:

"but there still would have been no evidence to convict you."

It's interesting to me. IF you admit you have killed someone and claim it was in self defense, don't you need to be able to show some evidence that you were, um, engaged in self defense?

I suppose it depends on the state, etc. But one of the great fears being bandied around the internet is that from a legal standpoint, if you ever get into a heated argument with someone, it is actually better to go ahead and kill them straight away and then say hey, I was defending myself. The person you argued with is dead so they can't give their version of the story.

Why not ALWAYS believe claims of self defense?

AllenS said...

I have a 38 that looks just like that. Yours is cocked. That's why I just bought the 380, the 38 is too bulky for the front pocket.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I had always assumed the picture was not you.

It isn't. I've seen it on the internet around as an example of "Fail" for quite some time. Unless Pasta really is is the original "Fail" poster child and then it is WIN.

Pastafarian said...

That's a good point, harrogate.

I guess we'd have to determine whether the shooter had any past history of sociopathy; and if he had any motive to go out and shoot this particular person.

In the absence of a motive, any history of aberrant behavior that might cause this person to kill without a motive, and any evidence of malice aforethought...then yeah, I guess you'd always acquit him.

Right?

Or do you have a different answer?

dc said...

I don't know who is cuter.Pastafarian or Mitchell the Bat.

harrogate said...

My answer is about the same. If you don't have to show evidence that what you did was self defense, then you don't have to show it.

At least Zimmerman presented evidence he'd been in a fight. But your hypothetical, combined with Marshal's interpretation? Yeah, that says to me, it's pretty much just open season to shoot a motherfucker if you want to.

Pastafarian said...

AllenS, I have a 38+P in that configuration too, but the one pictured is a 44. I like that one because I can practice with 44 special, and use actual 44 magnum for carry.

And the bonus there: Even if I miss, it belches out a glowing plume of unburned and burning powder, soot, and filth like a tiny shotgun/flame thrower that would blind the target.

Pastafarian said...

harrogate -- maybe it will encourage motherfuckers to be more civil with one another. An armed society is a polite society.

Pastafarian said...

And I don't think Zimmerman is thinking he got away with anything right now. Unless you consider 2 years of wondering whether you'll be killed in prison, followed by 10 years of wondering if you'll be assassinated by a mob, getting off scot-free.

That's not my idea of open-season.

harrogate said...

And Bonus: you could keep doing it, according to this logic! Because once you were acquitted, wouldn't you be able to object to prosecutors telling the jury you'd already killed twenty people before claiming self defense? Sure, that might sound like a lot of people to knock off in "self defense," but it's tough on a hard working American sometimes.

So, said twenty times killing someone in "self defense" would probably not be admissable as what Pastafarian calls "history of aberrant behavior that might cause this person to kill without a motive." Would it?

harrogate said...

"An armed society is a polite society."

It's a quote from a fucking Heinlein novel and while it is a good quote, it's obviously not always true. Or probably not even often true.

Just because you would like it to be that way does not necessarily make it so.

harrogate said...

"Unless you consider 2 years of wondering whether you'll be killed in prison, followed by 10 years of wondering if you'll be assassinated by a mob, getting off scot-free.

That's not my idea of open-season."

Please. He's going to be raking in money hand over fist, if he hasn't already. Chances of him being anywhere near the site of his "neighborhood watch" for "10 years" or even in the near future? About the same as me getting picked up on waivers by a MLB team during the playoff stretch run.

bagoh20 said...

About half the country is in emotional meltdown over Zimmerman being acquitted."

I have been avoiding talking to my liberal friends about the case. I'm absolutely certain about Zimmerman's innocence, and frankly I'm afraid to face the fact that my friends are so stupid, so I don't want to hear them say the stupid things I know they will. When someone starts, I change the subject or walk away. I love them as friends, and it will actually hurt me to hear it from them.

I know that if I walk them through it, we will end up at that point we always do, and which is so disappointing when they say: "Sure, but I don't care." And then just repeat the stupid position they started with.

I know they will agree, that if a black guy is approached by some white guy who punches him in the face and jumps on him, that the Black has the right to defend himself with whatever it takes. We would agree on that, but it won't sink in how it's the same. I know they will say: "I don't care. I think Zimmerman should be in jail for something."

I just hope it never comes up.

AllenS said...

Pasta, I hate to admit this, but when I shoot my 38, I have to have ear protection stuff going on. If confronted with a skittles youth, I'd have to ask if he'd wait long enough for me to use ear protection. Hopefully, the 380 won't be as loud.

Rabel said...

harrogate aside, you would have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm for them to find you not guilty.

If the only evidence was an unarmed body, a smoking gun, and your testimony, you would almost certainly go down.

Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was able to present ample evidence that he was attacked and acted in self defense.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I was looking "hollow shells" to comment on another post, when I came across this quote.

"Without human security and human development, effective governance and democracy are arguably HOLLOW SHELLS".

The Dude said...

Yeah, that's an unfortunate look. I went with the comb-over - makes all the difference in the world.

Titus said...

I think it is important we have a national conversation.

let's begin.

tits.

harrogate said...

Rabel,

You said "harrogate aside" but I hope you meant "Marshal aside," since after all I was responding to him initially, and it was on that basis that Pasta and I went forward.

And in any case, there was the lady who got twenty years for firing warning shots, and then this guy sure didn't get the Zimmerman treatment.

Ahhh, life. Whaddya gonna do?

Synova said...

Okay... is that actually you?

I do understand that the person in the picture is *trying* to look... like that... and pulls it off!

And yeah... the bigger picture shows the coolness even better. :)

Synova said...

harrogate, honestly... Florida seems particularly eff'd up when it comes to the courts implementing self-defense or stand-your-ground laws.

The woman who got 20 years seems to have been no saint, but the details of the case are ridiculous, involving mandatory sentencing and the old "plea bargain" if you don't take 2 years in minimum security and a wrist slap we're gonna destroy your life deal. What I mean is... she probably should have gotten *something* (she left and came back with the gun, for example) but 20 years is obscene.

As for the other? It sounds like there were people around and WTF? How does a 250 pound guy get his hands around the neck of a much smaller, 71 year old man and no one pulls them apart? But I haven't read up on that and don't know what happened past what you linked. It should have worked for self defense... because I don't think it's against the law to get in a yelling match. (Nor does it make sense that an smallish old man would *attack* a much bigger, younger guy... but who the heck knows... maybe he did. Again, I presume there were witnesses.)

Though... my inclination is to figure that since it was Florida the prosecution and conviction was bogus.

I've certainly seen accounts from other states where benefit of the doubt is correctly given to self-defense when the shooter is black and the other party is not.

bagoh20 said...

So Harrogate, lets assume the 71 year old guy in the story was essentially the same thing as the Zimmerman case, as it seems from what little is in your link. Do you want him innocent too, or both him and Zimmerman found guilty?

From what I read there, this 71 year old should be free too.

Smilin' Jack said...

Zimmerman's problem was that he didn't racial profile *enough*. He was thinking "black kid = probable burglar", when what he should have been thinking was "black kid = probable violent thug."

Lesson learned.

test said...

harrogate said...
Marshal, you wrote this independent clause:

"but there still would have been no evidence to convict you."

It's interesting to me. IF you admit you have killed someone and claim it was in self defense, don't you need to be able to show some evidence that you were, um, engaged in self defense?


Of course it would be possible for the jury to convict despite the law as apparently three of the Zimmerman jurors were, but as a legal matter the presumption of innocence means the prosecution has to present evidence to refute the self-defense claim. I have presumed they have no such evidence because the fact pattern states it was in fact self-defense.

test said...

P.S.

Why not ALWAYS believe claims of self defense?

As a legal matter it seems to me you have to start off believing it is self-defense (due to the presumption of innocence) and wait for evidence to convince you otherwise. That's the legal system we've always lived under. Why the sudden desire to change?

it is actually better to go ahead and kill them straight away and then say hey, I was defending myself.

You do have a better chance of getting away with it, but:

a) you also increase the cost if you're wrong, and
b) it's hard to control the physical evidence if it is in fact not self-defense.

The alternative of putting law abiding citizens in jail for defending themselves against criminals (a la Britain) is unacceptable.

test said...

harrogate said...
"An armed society is a polite society."

It's a quote from a fucking Heinlein novel and while it is a good quote, it's obviously not always true. Or probably not even often true.

Just because you would like it to be that way does not necessarily make it so.


It's funny you use this particular standard to criticize the other side. When mandatory concealed carry laws were proposed the left claimed passing them would turn America into the Wild West. In fact that did not happen, and there is no evidence of any increase in gun crime. So maybe you should consider what empiricism means to the left's theories.

edutcher said...

harrogate said...

An armed society is a polite society.

It's a quote from a fucking Heinlein novel and while it is a good quote, it's obviously not always true. Or probably not even often true


Polite isn't the issue.

It does, however, help keep the hoodla in line if they know the next little old lady they may want to mug may have an M1911 .45 ACP in her purse.

Let's just say it makes for a more respectful and circumspect society.

Paco Wové said...

Forgive me, Father, for I am about to violate the Tampa Tribune's copyright.

Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting

TAMPA — Trevor Dooley's attorney portrayed him Wednesday as a 69-year-old man with fused discs in his neck who feared for his life when set upon by his 41-year-old neighbor, six inches taller and 70 pounds heavier.

In a day of anguished testimony, eyewitnesses who included the 14-year-old skateboarder consistently described Dooley as the aggressor who cursed his neighbor and flashed a pistol before a fatal struggle for the gun.

The testimony offered a preview of Dooley's trial on a first-degree manslaughter charge scheduled for January if a judge doesn't dismiss the case based on his Stand Your Ground defense.

[...]

But the boy then heard a voice from across the street. It was Dooley, outside his garage, shouting that he should get off the court, that there was a no-skateboarding sign. The boy stopped.

He heard James call out to Dooley, "Show me the sign."

Michael Scott Whitt, practicing tennis serves nearby with his wife, Michelle, stopped to watch.

They testified that Dooley briefly went into his garage, then started across the street with a dark object sticking out of his waistband. They said James threw his hands up and said, "Oh, come on."

Dooley and James argued over letting the boy skate until Dooley lifted his shirt and said, "F--- you," the Whitts testified.

They said Dooley turned and started home, but James caught up with him. "Mr. James said, 'Don't flash a weapon,' something like that," Michelle Whitt testified.

Then, she said, Dooley pulled out the gun and James grabbed his hand. The men struggled, they fell to the ground, and James ended up on his knees as Dooley lay on his side. They still wrestled for the gun.

The gun fired.

"Mr. James looked up at us," Michelle Whitt testified. "He said, 'Call 911. I've been shot.' Then he fell over."

[..]

But when questioned by prosecutor Stephen Udagawa, the witnesses persisted in labeling Dooley the aggressor.

They said James never tried to punch or choke Dooley. They said he only went for the gun. "There were no threats, no fists," Michelle Whitt said.

Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting 12/14/11 [Last modified: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:09pm]

test said...

harrogate said...
And in any case, there was the lady who got twenty years for firing warning shots,


I find the left's diligent search for outrage less than thorough. I read several articles about this when the left started publishing it. To me a warning shot is in the air or otherwise completely away from the target. Her shot was not, she fired in the direction of her ex with her child standing next to him. The left is gullibly repeating her spin because it supports their narrative, but it is not factual.

Regardless, the assertion that some cases are badly decided doesn't mean Zimmerman's was.

harrogate said...

Marshal,

You lay a lot on me there and I will try to respond briefly here but I'll be chewing on your larger points for a while.

I want to say now though, that while the state has to prove you killed someone beyond the shadow of a doubt --that doesn't mean the state must disprove your claims to self defense beyond the shadow of a doubt once said killing has been admitted to. Once you have admitted to killing someone it seems to me you have to show at least *some* evidence that your claim to self defense is valid, yes?

Again, perhaps the burden of proof in this way varies from state to state? I honesty do not know for sure. Raising questions more than anything here.

Paco Wové said...

"Once you have admitted to killing someone it seems to me you have to show at least *some* evidence that your claim to self defense is valid, yes?"

Yes. What counts as "some"?

harrogate said...

"What counts as 'some'?"

Good question, but I'd wager it needs to be a hell of a lot more than what Marshal suggested upthread. Which is why Rabel is right to say that if all you have is a dead victim a smoking gun and your word, you prolly don't have enough.

bagoh20 said...

So if you are there with the gun, and the other guy is there dead from said gun, and there is nothing else. No proof of motive for him to have attacked or you and no ulterior motive to have shot him other than you say he attacked, and you shot. What happens?. One guy's story - no evidence, otherwise, no evidence = not guilty, right?

harrogate said...

Bagoh,

The scenario you lay out is what seems to be a question here, yes. And you ask "what happens?"

Indeed. Marshal gives one sort of answer, Rabel another. You seem to be leaning Marshal-ward. I'm not so sure but I think the implications either way are nothing to be cavalier about.

Paco Wové said...

"the implications either way are nothing to be cavalier about."

But nothing has changed. There's nothing new in the law concerning this. The only new thing is public hysteria.

William said...

I'm sure black people are subject to many subtle and not so subtle forms of discrimination. On the other hand, when it comes to getting your head bashed in by someone of another race, that's more of a problem for white people than for minorities. And, if American justice is so prejudiced, isn't that another argument for young black men to avoid punching strangers in the nose when they feel threatened.....Zimmerman, by all appearances, seems to be a decent person who was trying to lead a useful life. He has been endlessly vilified on no basis other than he regarded a black teen ager with suspicion.

Rabel said...

The Christwire link at 6:59 is terribly slanted.

Another view:

"In a day of anguished testimony, eyewitnesses who included the 14-year-old skateboarder consistently described Dooley as the aggressor who cursed his neighbor and flashed a pistol before a fatal struggle for the gun."

Dooley was the shooter, it was his gun. He pulled it before he was touched. James was the one standing his ground.

Guilty as charged.

William said...

I have lived and worked among black people for most of my life. For the most part we get along ok, and I've known many with outstanding qualities of kindness and patience. I've also known some who were opinionated jerks. The jerk might have very difficult relations with his fellow blacks, but you can be sure that he will blame any conflict with a white on that white's bigotry. The kicker is that all the other blacks, who don't particularly like the jerk, will take his side or, at best, stay neutral. There is no downside in black society for being over the top in hostility to whites.

Pastafarian said...

Harrogate, people almost always get in trouble for firing warning shots. If you're firing warning shots, then you are not in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

You're not legally allowed to draw your weapon until you're in a situation where it would be reasonable to expect death or serious injury. Otherwise, you're committing menacing.

Not how I would have written the law, but that's how it is. If not for that law, Zimmerman might have pulled his gun before Martin reached him, and Martin might have been dissuaded.

Lesson: Don't take firearms handling advice from the Vice President of the United States.

test said...

harrogate said...
Once you have admitted to killing someone it seems to me you have to show at least *some* evidence that your claim to self defense is valid, yes?


I think we are straddling the difference between the law and what people believe is right / will do.

IANAL, but in order for a crime to have occurred self defense had to not occur. Therefore it seems to me that even in this case the prosecution has to prove their case, which must include that self-defense did not occur. Therefore as a matter of law I don't believe there has to be any other evidence [some evidence does exist in the assertions of the defendant or his lawyer].

I agree people do look for corroboration, as I noted the hypothetical case would be harder to win than Zimmerman's. But I believe this is because juries don't always exactly follow the law.

I think the mistake in the left's hyperbolic assertion is the implicit assumption that no contradictory evidence will exist if people merely make assertions of self-defense. It's very rare that no evidence would be available either to support or rebut the presumption [this was not true in the Zimmerman case]. It's much like a "tie" in baseball going to the runner. That's the rule, but in effect in almost never matters because there are almost no ties: the runner beats the ball or not.

In the few percentage of cases where there is literally no evidence then what? The legal system reaches the wrong decision as it does in so many other cases. We can't design perfection, and such a system is vastly superior to our alternative: telling criminals they can attack anyone and the police will put anyone who resists in jail.

harrogate said...

Marshal,

That's a great comment and I feel sort of dumb, to be honest, for not seeing that this is what you meant all along. I think on balance we are agreed here.

I actually said very little on Althouse or in conversation or anywhere, about the Zimmerman case ad even still I wish I had said less. I feel sadness when I think about this case. I am ok with the jury's verdict, but I'm a defendant's rights person from the way back; the state has awesome powers and like you, I'd rather see a guilty person get off than an innocent person go to prison. I said the same thing about Casey Anthony when that went down and even for that matter, OJ. If you go for a murder charge you'd better have the goods.

Thanks for the conversation.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

There is no downside in black society for being over the top in hostility to whites.

Well put.

The president did say "lets have a conversation."

Lem the artificially intelligent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I don't have a firearm, and I don't know anybody who has one, but from my limited reading of people who own guns and are gun enthusiast is that they follow the law and are knowledgeable about how to be a responsible gun owner.

Pasta @9:27

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Rh puts it very succinctly.

Hitting people over the head and taking their stuff works too.

Going back to what once was the norm for thousands of years is not in the realm of impossibility. It is amazing how something so mind numbly simple can scape rational thought.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I'm talking about the concept of self defense. In case I was unclear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Good post Pasta.

test said...

Harrogate,

Enjoyed it.

bagoh20 said...

I really do wish that photo was actually Pastafarian. That would make him the coolest of commenters. To be that visual presentation with his wit, smarts, and attitude would just be super-enigamtic-fabuloso.

Man, you should just get a make over. Take that photo, and say make me look like this.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I think Pasta's a good-looking fellow but he could probably benefit from one of those cordless body groomers he'd find using the Amazon search portal.

Matt Sablan said...

"And in any case, there was the lady who got twenty years for firing warning shots, and then this guy sure didn't get the Zimmerman treatment."

-- Do you mean the woman who, after retreating, picked up a gun, walked back to people who put their hands up in surrender and fired a shot at them while they were begging for their lives?

Do you actually follow breaking news stories for more than a day? Because it seems like you latch onto the initial misinformation and then don't bother to get the current details.

Matt Sablan said...

I honestly think most people who think Zimmerman broke the law don't understand what SYG does. SYG doesn't allow you to pick fights with people who disrespect, annoy, or even frighten you! If there's a guy down the hall who frightens me, I can't gun him down and claim I stood my ground.

All SYG does is remove the duty to retreat. This means that if the guy attacked me, and I could, conceivably, have ran away, I can declare SYG if I am in a place I have a legal right to be. What this means, in effect, is that if a robber says "Your money or your life," immediately decking him is not a crime. In some areas, it IS a crime if you do not attempt to retreat, give him your money, or in some other way negotiate in that situation since you COULD have prevented violence by acquiescing to the demand.

That's what SYG does.