|Posted by Renita Hamilton on March 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM|
"Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, which says a citizen doesn’t have to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker, could throw a legal wrinkle into the case of a neighborhood watch captain who shot to death an unarmed black teenager."
In my accessment, based on what I have heard on the case;
He kept the place under surveillance as a Capt of the watch and he may have gotten somewhat confused in the assumption of his duties and the expectation of his positional actions. He was emotionally charged by the position and the previous crimes within the hotspot. He did make a threat assessment before calling the police, evident by the 911 tape. He was in or in charge of a hot spot, and possibly considered geographic profiling on a small scale.
What he did do is he failed to apply a common/good sense of deductive reasoning to create a citizens type of burden of proof before his decision of pursuit or after. He recognized it, but did not properly apply it and it resulted in the reaction of inductive reasoning of assumption. Or the general assumption of a previous crime and Situational stereotyping creating the expectation that the present situation will be the same as past situations. He then treated it as if it were a true positive increasing both his justification and his vulnerability to an existing vulnerability to be overly charged with emotional excitability.
It is more of a Action stereotyping, combined with a form of power assurance, having no probable cause but assuming he did than any hate crime. At the secondary scene, determined by the overly emotional excitable condition revealed in the tone of his voice. He was not in control, he was not violently charged with a emotional hatred but in a state of unknown reactive response triggered by an emotional excitability charged with a form of power assurance and a situational confrontation (which I believe he had not been in before) and an underlying trait of predator ship commonly found in subjects with this type of over charged emotional excitability. The words used that appear as a racial comment was a self re-assurance from a presence of doubt or the realization that the situation was not as he had thought so he used a justification pep memo.
Basically, he could be guilty of Personal cause homicide, motivated by a personal cause, which ensues from interpersonal aggression this one deriving from a form of powerless motivation. My assessment of him would be that he lay be of a gay orientation, he had not know a power position if where he had actually had to assume the position emotionally and mentally, he was very unsure of his personhood, he was very alert to the feelings and expectation of those around him and probably based decisions on that assumption. (Motivated by a personal cause does not mean that the slayer and the victim have to be known to each other.)
At most a Manslaughter criminal homicide that is committed under circumstances not severe enough to constitute murder but that cannot be classifies as justifiable or excusable.
Crime of murder is also the tort of wrongful death and both can be applied.
This is also vulnerable to the DOJ and Obama Administration, if they are successful in trying it as a hate crime. We will see implications that will be used to limit the rights of citizens.
Categories: The Law and You