There is a key aspect to the Travvon Martin case that I have not seen addressed yet. There is an obvious conflict in the idea of presumption of innocence under Florida law, which is heavily influenced by stand your ground laws.
In this case, George Zimmerman is presumed innocent until the state can prove him guilty. Which means Travvon Martin is presumed guilty before the state can prove him innocent. This conflict takes on more surreal dimensions when we factor in the following:
Zimmerman is not "innocent" of killing Martin. We know he did. He doesn't even contest that. This was not the usual murder trial that seeks to prove that person X did, in fact, kill person Y. We already know Zimmerman killed Martin. There is no "innocence" involved in that.
Second, we also know that Martin did not kill Zimmerman, obviously. So he is truly "innocent" right off the bat. We know he is innocent of killing anyone.
But the law twists and turns everything on its head. Zimmerman, the guy we know killed an unarmed teenager is the one presumed innocent, while his victim, Martin, is presumed guilty of causing Zimmerman to shoot him. The dead person who killed no one is presumed guilty.
Florida law, which is heavily influenced by SYG, says that the state has all the burden of proof in cases like these. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he acted in self defense. It's enough that he claimed he did, which is why Sanford police didn't even bother to arrest him until pressured by outside forces.
(One can also say it's pure D racism, and it probably is. But the laws in Florida effectively make that pathology an unnecessary factor.)
The Witness Factor
There were no witnesses to the event. No one saw what happened. John Good had, perhaps, the best view to the later -- but not the last -- stage in the tragedy, but even he said repeatedly that it was too dark. Asked twice if he saw anyone bash anyone's head into the cement, he said no, twice. He also said he couldn't even be sure if the person on top was punching the person underneath him.
That claim, btw, (that Martin bashed Zimmerman's head into the cement) is what conservative defenders of Zimmerman routinely fall back on in these discussions as if it's established fact. Wrong. It's just the defense team's hypothesis, never proven. No one saw anyone bashing anyone's head into the cement. And it's not logical that someone could find their gun, aim it and shoot it if the person on top is smashing their head into the concrete.
So the lack of witnesses pretty much guarantees that the state can not convict Zimmerman, who we know was guilty of killing Martin. Again, we know he killed an unarmed teenager, on the way home from 7-11. But, perversely enough, the lack of witnesses doesn't hurt Zimmerman's case at all, because he doesn't have to prove he acted in self-defense, once he makes that claim. The state has to prove he did not. This makes it easy to pervert justice and stand it on its head.
Preliminary Conclusions
In short, the stand your ground laws effectively give gun owners the "right" to play judge, jury and executioner, and there is little anyone can do about it. The burden of proof is so incredibly high on the prosecution, people who claim "self defense" will walk 99% of the time if they kill the only other witness. Anyone who read the judge's instructions to the jury can see that.
More under the fold . . . .
To me, logic tells us that if it is established that person X did kill person Y, then if person X claims "self defense," he or she must defend that claim, and the bar for "self-defense" should be high. It should be "kill or be killed," not "kill or suffer minor injuries in a fist fight." That logically should become more difficult when the other person is unarmed. The presumption of innocence should go to the unarmed victim, not the killer.
(It can't be with both.)
Additional Factors and Conclusions
One of an array of problems with these laws is it makes too many people forget about the actual killing, which is the real scene where "guilt and innocence" must be decided. Providing a rationale for that killing is a different thing altogether. It does not cancel out the original killing. That original killing does not go away with X, Y or Z rationale.
The bar should be set very high for the use of deadly force in any case, and it shouldn't be limited to "the ability to escape." Did that person have the ability to prevent a killing by other means? Did they have to kill instead of wound? Even in the case of someone breaking into your house -- which is actually unrelated to the Martin/Zimmerman trial -- the homeowner should have to prove he or she had no other choice but to kill or be killed. It shouldn't be, "If I didn't kill them, they would have stolen my HDTV!"
Castle laws and stand your ground laws show an evolution in America -- rather a devolution -- into barbarity. They are designed to leap from a ground of "fear" to justified killing, with no middle ground. Actually, not even "fear." The perception of fear is enough. The "feeling" that one may be in danger is enough to leap to deadly force, with no middle ground of any kind.
Change of Heart and Last Word
At first, the verdict in the Zimmerman case stunned me and appalled me. I couldn't believe it when I first found out. But the more I researched it, the more I came to realize that the jury had no choice. Florida laws and the judge's instructions in which she mentions SYG forced them to acquit. Again, the burden of proof was far too high for the prosecution, and they took far too long to build their case from the getgo. Waiting for nearly two months before even arresting Zimmerman, failing to rope off the crime scene, etc. etc. pretty much doomed any chance of conviction from the start. But the laws themselves already made that next to impossible, even if Sanford police had done their jobs.
The laws need to change. Now. They are barbaric and dangerous.