Hey, there! Log in / Register
State rep makes a statement on Trayvon Martin case
By adamg on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 5:23pm
Carlos Henriquez in a hoodie.
State Rep. Carlos Henriquez of Roxbury wore a hoodie to work at the State House today. His office reports he wore it onto the floor of the House of Representatives, although he put the hood down.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thank you Carlos. If
Thank you Carlos.
If America is supposed to be about one thing, it is equal protection under the law. However, this is a standard that seems to be eroding precipitously.
Our elected leaders are not held accountable for war crimes or violating other laws, bankers with impunity run fraudulent scams that suck our money from us like a giant squid, and our corporate-backed craptastic gun laws keep killers from standing trial in front of a jury.
Say 'no' to Stand Your Ground, Massachusetts Senate Bill 661. Tell Senator Brewer and the other 19 assholes who support this bill to learn something about what they put their name on and push it through the legislature.
The NRA owns America, don't you know that? ALEC too.
I’m concerned the debate over Stand You Ground is formulated as delivering on a promise of allowing people to defend themselves but it goes beyond defending oneself to defending oneself by harming an erstwhile assailant.
Let’s look how the law authorizes use of deadly force. It says a gun owner can shoot their gun at the other person based in a reasonable belief the person they’ve encountered is GOING TO cause them bodily harm.
This is not self-defense using deadly force in response to bodily harm. This is defense using deadly force IN ANTICIPATION of bodily harm. How armed people act on fear is a HUGE issue.
The police have strict rules and a lot of training in this area. Average guy has none. The law authorizes Average Guy to discharge his handgun at a much lower standard than our police force. Does that seem like a good idea to you?
I think it also authorizes the use of deadly force to defend one’s possession, for example, an iPhone — deadly force.
Our law enforcement establishment has a lot of concerns about this bill. The bill poses problems for police investigating a shooting/homicide for probable cause because it authorizes shooting based on a standard that’s extremely difficult to assess independently, a frame of mind, a reasonable belief; not an act, a belief.
In addition to the above, it says anytime a shooter discharges their weapon consistent with this law, they are held harmless of ANY civil liability.
For example, I fear I’m being mugged and I shoot the alleged assailant but in fact he was not going to mug me. The police have no probable cause because my story about my frame of mind is compelling, and there’s no evidence to the contrary. The alleged assailant – now shooting victim – is a paraplegic. I have no liability and they have enormous damages. Shouldn’t people who shoot their guns be held responsible for the consequences of their actions or at least let a jury decide?
It says gun owners can shoot first based on a belief that the person they’ve encountered is GOING TO cause them bodily harm.
Ignoring all other facts, it means two people engaged in fisticuffs, one armed and one not armed, cannot have less lethal fisticuffs … the latter of whom will not escape without bullets lodged in his person.
The bill makes no requirement that the shooter is also facing deadly force in order to use deadly force.
Heller says people can own hand guns and use them to defend themselves.
Stand Your ground goes well beyond in ways that are not responsible and do not hold shooters responsible for damages.
kill or be killed
The decision to use deadly force AFTER bodily harm has already taken place (vs "in anticipation" thereof) is about the silliest thing I've ever heard of. You always have the right to kill a person who you reasonably believe is going to kill you. The idea that we need a law to protect this right is ludicrous. The idea that such a law would affect behavior in situations that matter is also ridiculous. Will your tombstone read "I would have defended myself, but I was afraid of a lawsuit?"
Deranged People
Like, people who delusionally confuse "any teenage boy" with "threat to person" deserve to be locked up in mental wards until they can rein in their delusions.
They should not have guns.
Do you want some pervert to stalk, track down, grab ahold of, and then shoot your kid as he or she fights them off, and then use this bullshit as an excuse for doing so?
Also, gangbangers and feuding families/neighbors alike will simply say "but he/she was one of them so I had to shoot first" and get away with it ... again ... and again ... and again. Oh, and what about Occupy Oakland, which has been tangling with the police? Open season on cops with a bad reputation, too?
(For the Record: I am a gun owner)
Illinois Representative Bobby
Illinois Representative Bobby Rush tried a similar tribute in the House of Representatives but was ejected because the House has rules against head coverings on the floor.
I know I got it made while
Good for Rep.
Good for Rep. Henriquez.
Where are the other state reps?
gun laws
I think a lot of you fail to realize how hard it is to actually get an LTC in this state.
In the city of Boston (and basically every surrounding neighborhood) its essentially impossible for the average citizen to get an unrestricted LTC A (which allows the right to carry a loaded concealed handgun).
ALSO, in the city of Boston (and Brookline) you have to take a 30 round shooting test at the Boston Police range with a 357 revolver (not exactly a small gun) and pass with 70% (this is grossly unconstitutional, but no liberal MA judge will overturn it)
So, its not like every Tom, Dick, and Jane is going to be walking around with guns waiting to shoot someone (although, and I bet everyone gets pissy about this, but studies show when a larger percentage of people own guns, there is less crime).
I realize that
I haven't even bothered to jump the hoops to bring my non-concealable gun to MA because the process is ridiculous. My uncle has it in Oregon, where I quite legally tossed the heirloom .22 rifle my granddad built in the back of the car to transport it.
I also think that leaving things to the discretion of the local police department is nuts. After all, Zimmerman kissed ass on the local cops to the point where multiple complaints about his behavior fell on deaf ears. Ditto for the historic reluctance of local cops (generically) to investigate church or school abuse cases.
The need to reform MA license process is obvious, but the notion that any and all acts of violence could be excused because somebody says that they "felt afraid" - not because they were actually attacked, not because they attacked someone first and that someone defended themselves, is an endless pit of obvious stupidity.
I'd be interested to see a link to those studies that you mention ... and what they were controlled for (e.g. population density, etc.).
The process isn't has hard as everyone makes it out to be.
Go through the process and if you don't make it, let me know, and with your permission, I can let people here know why you didn't get it. 99% of the time it is because you were convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, had a restraining order, lied on your application, or didn't fill out the paperwork properly.
As far as the course, if you can't shoot 96% on that course, you probably shoudn't be driving, let along shooting guns.
I mean, don't we want to be sure the "wrong" people aren't allowed to have guns?
the issue is that "the wrong
the issue is that "the wrong people" don't go through the process to get their guns.
I realize the process shouldn't be hard to complete, but the hassle and hoops created for the applicant to jump through are a tad ridiculous. I didn't mention time you would have to take off from work to file the application (only can be done at BPD HQ, only during their biz hours), or for the "interview", or for the shooting test. Then after all of that, if you're lucky you might have your permit in 30-40days.
My gripe is the lawful citizen has to do a lot to exercise his 2nd amendment right, while the criminal he may have to defend himself from just visits his neighborhood gun dealer. (where as in RI you could legally buy your permit and a gun all in the same day)
Fair enough, but what about the zimmermans?
He probably wouldn't have a gun if he lived in MA.
grain of salt
And many, many studies have found the opposite to be true.
sb661 in Massachusetts
This thread isn't about how many people have guns, it's about whether our laws protect people who don't have guns from reckless or irresponsible discharge of guns by people that do. There are two kinds of laws being passed, now in about 20 states including NH; Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
This month a 20 year old in Wisconsin was shot dead hiding on the porch. The use of deadly force was authorized with Wisconsin's recently passed and much opposed shoot-first law. It's a shoot first in your own home with criminal immunity and hold-harmless civil liability law, aka Castle Doctrine.
What kind of a threat was the 20 year old? He was hiding not being aggressive, but he was on someone porch.
To engage in self-defense does not require the use of deadly force. Self-defense includes threat assessment. These new laws encourage gun-owers to shoot first when in a reasonable society the use of force permitted would be proportional to the threat posed.
In theory the law is fair
But there are so many factors involved in physical altercations, that it makes it impossible to regulate or enforce the law after the fact.
This Zimmerman guy had 2 factors going against him. One of them was that he had a firearm and he knew (or should have known) that he has an advantage going into this confrontation with someone that had no idea an altercation was taking place. The second thing is that Zimmerman initated the confrontation. Zimmerman is also bigger, older, and is unofficially acting in a capactiy to keep the peace in his neighborhood.
I mean, what if Martin was walking minding his own business, then Zimmerman jumps out and attackds Martin, and Martin, in the heat of the battle, possibly knowing that Zimmerman has a gun, has to smash Zimmermans head against the ground in order to save his own life? How is Martin supposed to know Zimmermans intent?
Hey Pete did you see the video released by the PD
from the night of the shooting? You can see Zimmerman's face and head quite clearly, and you'll noticed no wounds, blood, etc.
He is a liar.
Oh I saw the video
And he did not look like he had any injuries, and more importantly, did not go the the hospital that night or get medical attention at the scene.
As far as lying, I'd have to see what he said first before I can determine that. I'd also have to see photos of Zimmerman, the crime scene, and other witness statements at the time.
Even if he wasn't lying, it shouldn't matter. Zimmerman instigated the altercation and he had a firearm. Martin should not have to automatically assume that Zimmerman had peaceful intentions of keeping the neighborhood safe, especially if Zimmerman did not identify himself or his intentions which I do not believe he did. I think Martin was trying to protect himself by confronting an armed man that is following him for really no good reason. The tragedy here is that the armed man had no business being armed because he could not handle himself without resorting to violence.
Zimmerman is cowardly and weak in my opinion.
1st degree murder? Probably not, since his intent may have not been malicous. But he should do 20 years in my opinion (from the limited amount of facts that I know right now)
One more point
Not sure where the law stands on this, but he was specifically told not to follow the individual by law enforcement. Standing your ground is one thing - pursuing to the point of harrassment and altercation is entirely different. I'll let the legal eagles sort it out - but it does look like Zimmerman is guilty of something - probably manslaughter, maybe more. The only reason not to prosecute is if they do determine in the end this is an unwinnable case based on conflicting or lack of evidence - but nobody out here has enough info to determine that.
What we teach our kids about possible abductions
First, we tell them to leave the area - which Martin did when Zimmerman started stalking him.
Second, if the would-be abductor grabs a kid, we tell them to fight and kick and scream and otherwise resist!
Martin did that, was shot, and now Zimmerman is claiming he had to defend himself against that resistance.
What, exactly, do I tell my kids after this? I can't help but think that if Zimmerman had a sex offender history, Martin would be a martyred hero.
Martin is still a hero I would say
But even if Martin "started" the altercation by confronting Zimmerman, we still can't fault Martin since he shouldn't be expected to wait until the person following him does something should we?
If a person follows me, I'm not keeping my back turned, waiting to see what the person who follows me is going to do. I'm probably going to do the same thing Martin did, and thats confront the follower.
Another place Zimmerman's
Another place Zimmerman's story falls apart is where he claims he lost Trayvon, headed back to his truck, and was confronted by Trayvon from behind. What possible reason would Trayvon have for seaking out his pursuer when all along he'd been walking as fast as he could to get away?
In addition, this confrontation to place about 70 yards from Trayvon's "home."
Zimmerman sought Trayyvon and confronted him. So be it. Even if there had been fisticuffs without a gun, at least they'd both be alive today. But no, Zimmerman had to bring a gun and then use it.
My gut tells me to believe the worst about George Zimmerman. That his anger was premised on the break-ins but that he profiled Trayvon as the burglar because of a stereotype and suspicion but not evidence. Then he took the law into his own hands instead of WATCHing, REPORTing and WAITing in his truck. Then he discharged his weapon.
I think George Zimmerman's father has gotten him out of trouble three times, including using violence on a police officer. I don't think he can this time.
The heart of the matter
This one line sums it all up. No need to get bogged down in questions of racism, or whether Zimmerman at some point was taking a beating from Martin. None of that matters. Zimmerman stalked Martin, confronted him, and then shot him. Nothing about Martin may have done matters regarding these facts.
I know you've all been waiting for my post so here goes
A few things to bring up here:
#1 - anyone with an unrestricted LTC in MA has gone through a rigorous background check, having an LTC tells me a lot about a person in this state.
#2 - the discretionary licensing in this state is unconstitutional and needs to be ended ASAP. I can carry in Boston, but most likely those of you that live in Boston would never get an unrestricted LTC; that's a real problem.
#3 - Stand your ground laws are not to blame for this incident - Zimmerman is to blame even if it is later decided he's not culpable by a court of law, this was ENTIRELY his fault.
#4 - If you don't think people should defend themselves you really need to think hard about it for a moment. Take Castle Doctrine laws for example - in this state Coakley wants you to call the police if someone is breaking in/has broken in/etc. What's a good response time from the police here? Let's say 90 seconds (it's not that good). Think about how long 90 seconds is if a person has broken into your house and wants to hurt/rape/kill you, it's a damned eternity. Our cops overall do a good job but there are simply not enough of them to protect everyone all the time - when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away..
#5 - I often get told that carrying a gun somehow makes me prone to violent fits of uncontrollable rage by those with an anti-gun bias. In fact, the opposite is true; when carrying a gun I know that I can't get in a shouting match, fist fight, shoving match, or any other altercation.. why? Because if I were to get into a fist fight and the other person realized I have a gun, the escalation of the danger of the situation just increased dramatically even if I never had any intention of using a gun. The fact it is even there makes ANY altercation a serious one - I let things slide when I'm carrying (biker's running me off sidewalks, cars almost clipping me running red lights, the line cutter at the grocery store, etc) all because I know that I simply can't get into an altercation. I know the majority of gun owners that I'm friends with feel exactly the same way.
And it is this last point where Zimmerman was wrong and culpable, regardless of what happened afterwards. He knew he was armed, and chose confrontation over safety and prudence. That's doesn't make him an idiot gun owner, it makes him an idiot period.
But that's the fundamental question
Yes, he is an idiot. But he is an idiot and he's allowed to have a gun (still is!). While you may be the best card-carrying gun owner ever, not everyone is like you...and yet nearly anyone can have a gun, idiot or not. The ones who can't, can always steal them from the idiots who can or buy them illegally anyways.
The crux of the matter is that there are idiots...and they have access to guns.
do we ban cars
since some people aren't responsible enough to not drive drunk?
We don't ban cars or guns
But we can revoke licenses in both cases. We also can't do much if those with suspended licenses want to actually drive cars or posess guns.
polarbare: Stand your ground
Stand Your Ground law say that you can shoot a erstwhile assailant (that is someone who hasn touched you yet) if you believe s/he is going to cause you 'great bodily harm', and that you cannot be held criminally responsible or civilly liable for damages. I'd say that's a strong incentive to shoot first. Justifiable homicides are up 300% in Florida since this law passed. Are you going to argue that there are 3x more good reasons to shoot and kill people in Florida than there used to be?
Matters of scale
How many people has a single drunk driver ever killed at one time? I'm betting it's less than the number of bullets in your typical handgun magazine.
Was it obvious that the drunk was driving a car? It's not always obvious when an idiot is carrying a gun.
How many different cars has a drunk killed different people in over the course of a single night? It's a tad easier for an idiot to carry more than 1 gun at a time.
Being drunk is temporary. Idiocy is a tad more permanent.
I also didn't argue for banning guns anyways. I just think that if you want to make the distinction between "idiot gun owner" and just plain "idiot", then you're going to have to explain how you keep plain idiots from becoming one of those idiot gun owners...particularly legally so...because it seems to happen fairly often. To use your comparison directly, if you showed up drunk to take your driving test, you probably wouldn't get your driver's license. If an idiot showed up to get a carry license...well, Zimmerman (still!) has a carry license.
Actually polar are the law can be partially at fault
The possible protection of this law may have given Zimmerman the mindset to take the actions he took. Without this law, Zimmerman may have just followed quietly and called the cops. Now someone is dead, and Zimmerman might get off because he "felt" his life was in danger.
Case in MA back in 1989 where a robber goes into a store with a gun to hold it up. Store keeper distracts the robber and tries to hit the robber with a baseball bat. The baseball bat hits the robber, the gun goes off and kills the store keeper. Court rules that robber doesn't instigate the fight and agrees that the instigator of a fight can still use self defense if the fight escalates.
Like Kaz, I agree with you that trustworthy people should have the right to bear arms. The problem is that the public needs to be protected from the nut jobs just as much.
The problem with that law
It's not the law which caused Zimmerman to (allegedly) kill the kid. He (allegedly) did it by his own choice. But it is the "Stand Your Ground" law which allowed him to be able to go home freely and remain at large in possession of the weapon, even though he should be charged with the murder he (allegedly) committed and should go through that due process. Perhaps he would still be released, on bail or even on his own recognizance, but it appears that none of that has taken place. That is the scandal.