The level of ignorance and apathy among the population really astounds me. We live in a time in history when there is instant news everywhere. You don’t have to wait for images to be developed in the dark room. If you want to know what is going on anywhere in the world, that information is at your finger tips, even if you have minimal technology. The average cell phone allows a person to get minute-by-minute news updates.
Take the Trayvon Martin case for instance. I can’t imagine anyone not knowing the basic facts of the case. You would have had to be living on another planet not to have knowledge of the Trayvon Martin case. You are either living on another planet, or you only watch The FOX News Channel to be that ignorant of the news.
There maybe some people who don’t know about the Trayvon Martin case, and others that don’t care. I certainly understand those attitudes. It seems to me that if you host a radio talk show repping one of the largest law firms in the state, and your opening comments are about Trayvon Martin then you should know something about the case.
I called into the talk radio program, ‘Under Oath with Matt Englett.’ He answers questions, usually concerning bankruptcy and foreclosures but says that his firm is full service and can handle most any case. The public calls in for free advice on legal issues. Usually before he takes calls, he makes comments on the issues of the day. This day, the issue that he commented on was the Trayvon Martin case. I talked to him the next morning about his comments.
Listen to the complete audio here. http://youtu.be/ma5CxyG6Hko
This program aired March 21, 2012, on Under Oath with Matt Englett. The discussion was about Trayvon Martin, the youth that was gunned down by a self- appointed neighborhood watch captain. This story captured national attention but Matt Englett seemed unaware of the facts of the story and how the law applies.
There were several times that Mr. Englett said he did not read any of the information that I related to him, even though he said that he had read six or seven stories about the incident. Some of the other things Mr. Englett said:
1. He watches The O’Reilly Factor every day. He made light of the Stand Your Ground Law and tried to link the Trayvon Martin case with liberal views of gun control.
2. He said that in New York only criminals and police had guns. His attitude was that everyone should have a gun. (Sounds like a NRA talking point.)
3. He said that the system was working correctly and we should wait and let the authorities work through the issues in Sanford.
4. He said that law enforcement officers don’t have the right to the final decision. He made that statement after I suggested that Zimmerman should have been arrested.
5. He said that the issue is right where it should be and there was not enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman.
On his radio program, he gives free legal advice. Now, we know why.
Even though you may not agree with Mr. Englett, he is correct. The reason why Sanford police did not arrest George Zimmerman is they know from their previous experience with cases like this that it is a futile attempt to arrest him because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. Worse than this, Zimmerman might sue the police department for wrongful treatment of him.
Even if Zimmerman had refused to listen to the police and continued following Martin.
Even if Martin was unarmed and was not the threat to anyone,
Even if there was evidence showing Zimmerman was racially motivated,
Even if he is a big over-200 pound guy and could easily overpower the small guy like Martin without the use of gun.
Even if there were enough evidence that suggests Zimmerman was the one who first provoked the fight.
Under the protection of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman still can walk out of the courtroom a free man because he “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.”
He sincerely believed his life was in danger if he didn’t pull the trigger. How can the court challenge what one believes? Belief is real as long as one believes. There is no way to prove that what one believes is not true.
Not enough evidence means exactly what it implies. Don’t be so quick to arrest a man without know the full story. The justice system works both ways.
@Joan,
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. When a citizen has been arrested for a crime, that person cannot claim that he/she did not know the law. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. When an attorney misapply the law, that could be judged as malpractice. An attorney cannot say that they were now aware of the law when they are defending a client.
Jeb Bush, was governor when he signed the Stand Your Ground legislation into law. He and the person who designed the law both said that the Stand Your Ground Law does not apply to this case. Therefore all that you said is moot.
Since Stand Your Ground does not apply to this case, the question is, what law does. The laws dealing with stalking, physical harassing, kidnapping and yes, even murder all seems appropriate. They all require an investigation and arrest. Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman is free. Where is the law? Ignorance is not a defense.
Hmm… I read both yours and Joan’s comments and I don’t see where ignorance of the law is mentioned.
I would actually argue the opposite. Mr. Zimmerman is very aware of the law, and thus he is saying all the right things that make it difficult to arrest him.
Is the investigation shady? Sure, but here is an exact quote from the law I found on Florida’s Governmental site:
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
I don’t see how it doesn’t apply here. Saying that it doesn’t apply is like cherry picking writing to suit a situation’s purpose. In this case, we’ll say it doesn’t apply so that we can arrest Zimmerman.
I, too, am saddened by Trayvon’s death, but we should let cooler heads prevail and allow the investigation to proceed. If you truly believe in the justice system, it will prevail here as well.