I would like to preface this post in a few ways before I actually begin expressing my own thoughts and opinions here:
Firstly, I am not an expert on law (of any sort - let alone gun laws). I will express my thoughts and views based on my understanding of Michigan's gun laws including how they are enforced and how they are put into practice based on my limited training and reading. I will relate this understanding and experience to the shooting of Treyvon Martin in Florida and how that situation has been handled.
Secondly, I am not an expert on the situation surrounding the shooting of Treyvon Martin. I have read a decent amount in the news and have tried to get the best understanding I can of what actually happened, but I am not an expert.
Here is what I understand to have transpired on the night of this shooting incident:
- Treyvon Martin went out to a nearby 7/11 convenience store during a break in a basketball game. He was on his way back home having purchased skittles and tea when the shooting occurred.
- George Zimmerman saw Martin wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up and identified him as a safety concern for the neighborhood. He called the local police non-emergency phone number where he told them about the perceived threat and informed them that he was following the person. He was clearly informed by the police that he should absolutely not follow the person - he followed anyway and some interaction occurred that resulted in Zimmerman shooting Martin.
Now, on to my actual thoughts and opinions...
I have no idea what actually happened during the altercation that clearly took place. I'm not even completely clear on how/why the altercation took place to begin with. I'm not sure whether to believe that Zimmerman lost Martin and then encountered him again (as he claims). I'm not sure whether to believe that there was any interaction except the brief exchange of words and the shooting. Keep in mind that when I say that I don't know if I should believe these things, I mean exactly that. I'm not sure what to believe about it - I have know idea whether to believe many of these statements or not because there is not much evidence to back most (really any) of it up.
However, no matter what you believe about what happened, George Zimmerman should have been taken into custody right away when the police arrived. It is certainly important to know eventually what happened during the interaction that took place, but when the police first showed up, it shouldn't have mattered one bit. Zimmerman should have been taken into custody immediately.
Apparently this is not the way it works in Florida, but it should be. My understanding is that the Florida Stand Your Ground law says that the police officers who respond are not to arrest the shooter if he/she has a reasonable explanation of the encounter that accounts for their need to shoot. This is certainly not the exactly what the law says, but I believe it captures the idea behind it.
Michigan has a law very similar to this Stand Your Ground law they are talking about with regard to the shooting and in every shooting course I've ever taken, they are very clear about a couple of things - 1) that you should try to call 911 on speakerphone so that there is a record of what happened and 2) that you will be arrested when the police show up. Almost without exception, no matter how things happened and what reasons you have when the police show up or what proof you have of your need to shoot in self defense, you will be arrested. Then, if the story checks out and it seems like you are innocent, you'll be released and not charged. This is the way most of these laws are intended to be used.
In order to protect the public from a person who could potentially be a homicidal maniac, the shooter needs to be taken into custody until it is determined that there was a justifiable cause for the shooting. The fact that this was not done with George Zimmerman is already, in my (humble) opinion, a huge breach of proper procedure when dealing with a shooting case of any kind. Regardless of whether Zimmerman actually did shoot Martin in self defense or not, he should have been taken into custody immediately - and from there it could have been assessed whether he should be charged or released.
I understand that this may not be the way the laws in Florida are written and enforced. I'm not sure of the particulars there, but it seems to me that this situation illustrates one of two possible problems. Either the laws in question are written as I have described and are simply not being enforced or used in that way or the laws are actually not written to work the way I have described above. Either way, something needs to change - the laws either need to be enforced properly or rewritten to work in a way that keeps the public safe. Whether or not this shooting was handled in accordance with Florida law, the police response illustrates one of two major flaws with the current situation surrounding the Stand Your Ground law.
With all that being said, I want to acknowledge a few other thoughts. First, that the death of Treyvon Martin, regardless of why/how it happened, is a terrible thing. He was a young man whose life never should have been cut short because of what appears to be a tragic misunderstanding between two people. Second, I hope that this situation does not cause people to believe that we should have tighter gun control laws. Treyvon Martin's death was not the result of our gun control laws - it was the result of poor decision making which, unfortunately, no amount of legislation (at least while preserving our liberties) could ever correct. No matter what version of the story you believe regarding the events of that night, what happened was the result of bad decisions - the same way they happen all the time ending in car crashes that kill people. We don't blame the cars and we shouldn't blame the guns - it's the poor choices (and possibly lack of experience and training) in both situations that causes problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment