Early yesterday wasn't a very busy morning, so I had a lot of time on my hands. I picked up a Time magazine, dated April 9th, and noticed that it had an article about the Martin case.
It seemed to be on the left side of the argument and I was tempted to write something scathingly critical about it. The author of the piece, John Cloud, didn't seem to think it was important that Zimmerman was defending himself. His attitude was rather curious to me. However, I recalled something that happened just a couple of years ago and it gave me some thoughts to ponder on. To relate that, I'll have to tell a story. The story is not one that I like to tell because I'd like to consider myself to be an even tempered person. Normally, that is true. But not all of the time.
It was near Christmas in 2009 and I was out doing my job making deliveries. I was told that there was a drop point at a school and so I went there, but it didn't seem to be the right place. So I parked the truck in the lot, which was mostly empty because of the holiday. Not thinking that this would be a problem, I called the guy up in order to find out exactly where he was. I had him on the phone when somebody drove up and parked nearly behind me toward to the driver's side.
While I was on the phone, this guy called out and asked if he could help me. I didn't expect to be there long, especially since I was on the phone with the guy who could tell me where I needed to be. As soon as I had found what I needed to know, I would leave. All of this took just a couple minutes to develop. Just the amount of time to park and make the phone call. And this guy shows up and he's asking me if he could help me. I just wanted to take care of business as quickly as possible because that is what I get paid for.
His interruption was a bit annoying to me since I wasn't there long and the parking lot was empty and I wasn't bothering anybody or anything. As far as I knew, when I had arrived there, I was to make a delivery. It wasn't as if I was there for no good reason. It was just a mistake in communications.
But this guy persisted and was interrupting my call. I tried to wave him off, but he wouldn't back off. Finally, I had gotten the information I needed, and proceeded to back out of the parking spot, and this guy pulled in behind me- blocking my departure. That did it. I got very angry ( by my standards), got out of my truck, and proceeded to cuss this guy out.
It turned out that he was the school principal. He rolled up the window, evidently threatened by my language and demeanor. I pointed out to him, in very salty language, that he had no business blocking me because he wasn't a cop, even if he was the principal of the school-- he wasn't a cop. He also wasn't a security guard. There wasn't any way to identify him as a school principal since he was dressed in ordinary street clothes. Evidently, he agreed to that logic, and proceeded to pull away from my truck. But not before demanding to know who I was. I told him and he demanded to talk to my boss and proceeded to complain about my language.
It is state law- I know this because I was on jury duty once for a case that involved this law- that nobody can act in the capacity of a security guard without being a cop, or having specialized training in security work. So this principal was in the wrong for stopping me. I don't think somebody can just take it upon themselves to stop you from leaving as this guy was doing. I wasn't bothering anybody or anybody's property and hadn't been there that long.
The guy told the dispatcher that I was parking in his place, which was probably wrong, since the spaces weren't marked. There were plenty of spaces. I think the guy made up that story as a cover for himself and to justify himself.
Even today, thinking about this makes me a bit mad, but a bit worried that something as silly as this could have ended up in a more serious altercation. If it had, and he had been armed, it occurred to me that I might have been shot. He felt threatened and he was trying to act like a cop. And I was cussing because I was angry. But at the bottom of all this was some legitimate issues and some probably honest mistakes. The principal probably had cause to want to know who I was and what I was doing on the property, but he didn't have the authority to stop me from leaving if I didn't comply and answer his questions. At least this is what I think is state law. There was no way for me to know that he was the principal. He just looked like "Joe Blow" to me.
The point of all this is this: what if somebody has a little authority and pushes it a little too far? What if that person is armed and what if that person as a consequence of feeling threatened, decides to shoot at somebody? What if that same person is in street clothes and can't be identified as having any authority, but is exercising authority just the same? In overstepping his authority, what if he provokes someone to anger who would normally not be inclined to do anything to anybody and otherwise had legitimate business to be there?
Not to say that "stand your ground" is wrong, but just considering the possibilities, that something like this could lead to a tragic outcome in certain circumstances. You don't have to be doing anything wrong. You could just be making an honest mistake and somebody else could be making an honest mistake and the situation might get out of hand even without anybody intending it to.
I don't know how much you can consult your law books in the heat of the moment.
It would seem that a lot of education is in order before someone should be armed. And if this person is armed, he should know the law to every dot and crossing every "t".
You can't take this back if somebody dies, it can't be fixed.
You can look at this from the other point of view, which is why I was initially critical of the Time article.
Frankly, I want the right to arm myself if I feel that it is needed. I also feel like I have the right to defend myself. But I can see where in the course of everyday life how something like this can get out of hand, and when it does, it could lead to unexpected and unwelcome outcomes.
This isn't as cut and dried as the politicians and agitators would like to make it.
2 comments:
You have the right to put your fist anywhere you want to, until it reaches my nose. Your rights end where mine begin. Unless the parking lot was marked against it, you had the right to park there.The principal had the right to enquire about your intentions, but not the right to impede you bodily.I also find the principals interruption of your phone call to be rude, which unfortunately many people have become recently.
There's so much more to say about the Trayvon Martin case. Maybe you could write a book about it.
Trayvon Martin was young, but that may not explain everything.
Zimmerman is also relatively young-- but older than Martin. You might expect better judgment from an older person-- but, as in the example I just gave, not necessarily all the time.
Sometimes bad things happen.
There doesn't have to always be a bad guy, it could be just two ordinary people making bad choices in the heat of the moment.
I think that is what happened in my own case.
Post a Comment