Stand Your Ground Laws

[Westside Steve]

cysco

Looks like I miss typed a response to you.

oops

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I hate it when people try to manipulate me with facts...

 

Its like, hey buddy, I know what I BELIEVE and nothing you can tell me will change that. Jesus died for me so I can belive whatever I want. I would don't believe the same thing so you're not a patriot.

 

They try to come back at me with facts but I won't have any of that nonsense. If it were true it would be in the Bible

 

am i right folks?

Woody, you might consider not tagging every response with a swipe at christianity.

You might also try listing some facts when you're berating someone else.

 

It seems as though you have an issue with me over statistical analysis.

Fair enough.

What in particular do you think I am wrong about?

And why?

WSS

[Mr. T]

I'd have to be a liberal first, lol.

You are a progressive liberal so stop pretending.

[MLD Woody]

You are a progressive liberal so stop pretending.

 

I pick whatever us right based on common sense, facts, science, etc. Most of the time that leaves me somewhere in the middle.

 

Some on you are just so far right they being around the middle seems like a crazy liberal to you.

[MLD Woody]

Woody, you might consider not tagging every response with a swipe at christianity.

You might also try listing some facts when you're berating someone else.

 

It seems as though you have an issue with me over statistical analysis.

Fair enough.

What in particular do you think I am wrong about?

And why?

WSS

 

That was more of a shot at Cal. I'm in class so I might explain later.

[VaporTrail]

God hates all sorts of fags and they deserve to burn in hell. Obamao is a Moslem.

[Westside Steve]

http://live.psu.edu/story/52321

[Westside Steve]

I do know. I mentioned the difference earlier. I'd rather not spending my time typing out everything for you when you can read it on your own.

Just to recap I finished reading every 1 of your posts before this one.

You did not mention what was the difference earlier.

 

Now after a little research on your part perhaps you can understand why stand your ground doesn't have" just about everything" to do with the case.

Once an attack, or battery, occurs the responsibility to retreat and thereby avoid an altercation is out the window.

 

Now perhaps you can share your opinion as to why you think that law should be discarded. Or not.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, goodness. Steve, you make me sad.

 

My man, everyone was talking about the legal differences in the first few days of this case. You could hardly avoid it. It was talked about on TV and in print. Endlessly. You could also have learned about the differences when those laws were being passed in states all over the country. The whole point was that you admitted didn't know it from the outset, when you said you didn't see the difference between it and self-defense. Remember? So, I told you that the legal standard is different and to look up the difference. Because you can't have this discussion if you don't know what the difference is. And now you're taking some pathetic victory lap because you've scanned all my posts and you think I didn't know the difference because I just referred to the "legal standard" being different and not spelling out what the legal standard was. Trust me - I'm serious, just trust me - I knew what the difference was. As someone who monitors the news for a living, who sits in front of computer for 12-14 hours a day (sadly) consuming news and opinion pieces, you can rest easy. I'd read the text of the law. I'd listened to and read legal analysts talk about the law. I remember when these laws were being passed. If it makes you feel better to think I didn't, I don't know what to tell you. Go enjoy yourself. Crack a beer in celebration. You've won an imaginary victory.

 

Of course, I wanted you to find the difference, and I think you know why. Because so much of what we do in here depends on you being able to find information. And after the last few cases where you've been either unable to find sources of information, or worse, found some really really bad sources of information, I need you to show me you can find basic shit online without posting YouTube videos. Once again, you couldn't do that.

 

But now you've talked to some attorney friends who don't think the law applies here. I'm not an attorney, but I haven't heard anyone suggest this besides you/them. It's the law in the state of Florida, and the fact that an altercation has started does not seem (to me) to throw the law out the window. It is the relevant law here. Before the law, you had a duty to retreat before using deadly force. Now you don't, even once attacked. The legal standard has been changed, and the prosecution now has a harder time making their case.

 

Here's a WSJ editorial:

 

"Now that prosecutors have charged Mr. Zimmerman, they will face a similar challenge. Mr. Zimmerman had called 911, and the dispatcher instructed Mr. Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. Had Mr. Zimmerman complied, no one would have been hurt. Before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors could have relied on Mr. Zimmerman's opportunity to retreat in order to help rebut his claim of self-defense.

 

After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. The police report contains some evidence to back Mr. Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Mr. Zimmerman reportedly sustained a broken nose, cuts to the back of his head, and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. These facts could provide reasonable doubt on the self-defense question if jurors thought that Martin may have had Mr. Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him. This inquiry is much more fact-intensive than relying on Mr. Zimmerman's ability to leave the scene.

 

Nevertheless, even with Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman will have difficulty asserting a successful self-defense claim. Stand Your Ground laws do not affect most basic requirements of pleading self-defense. Individuals using lethal force in self-defense must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury—in other words, an average person, given the facts as Mr. Zimmerman knew them, would have reached the same inferences about the danger Martin posed and the necessity of using deadly force to avoid it. Mr. Zimmerman's mere honest beliefs will not suffice.

 

Nor does the Stand Your Ground law permit individuals to use disproportionate force in self-defense. Mr. Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably feared that Martin was going to kill him, cause great bodily injury (e.g., permanent disfigurement), or commit a forcible felony. A few cuts and a broken nose may not rise to this level. And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.

 

There is no need to exaggerate the leniency of Florida law. Regardless of whether he should have walked away, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed Martin as a mortal threat.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So, in my opinion, this case highlights what is the essential flaw in this law. Because if Zimmerman is on tape following a guy when police dispatchers are telling him not to, this not only doesn't happen, but he's more likely on the hook for what he did - shooting a 17-year-old kid who wasn't doing anything wrong - than he is now.

 

Incidentally, the Florida Governor, a Republican, is assembling a task force to look into these laws. Political cover? Sure. Task forces usually are. But the sense that these laws tip the balance toward people who may want to use deadly force and away from an ability to avoid potentially deadly violence. I'd prefer to have the law not encourage that.

[Westside Steve]

So, in my opinion, this case highlights what is the essential flaw in this law. Because if Zimmerman is on tape following a guy when police dispatchers are telling him not to, this not only doesn't happen, but he's more likely on the hook for what he did - shooting a 17-year-old kid who wasn't doing anything wrong - than he is now.

 

Incidentally, the Florida Governor, a Republican, is assembling a task force to look into these laws. Political cover? Sure. Task forces usually are. But the sense that these laws tip the balance toward people who may want to use deadly force and away from an ability to avoid potentially deadly violence. I'd prefer to have the law not encourage that.

First he was not told to stop following martin.

They said we don't need you to do that.

Second there is nothing illegal about following someone.

Third, unless he's lying which is possible, he had stopped following and martin attacked him.

Maybe martin would get the benefit of a stand your ground had things not turn out as they did.

I wouldn't doubt that a 17 year old athlete could out run an older fatter man?

But if we're playing hypothetical had martin not attacked this wouldn't have happened either.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

We don't have to play that hypothetical because it's impossible. We know Martin followed Zimmerman, both from the 911 call and from Martin's girlfriend's call. If Martin isn't followed by Zimmerman there isn't a confrontation and this never happens.

 

The point is, the following is probably key in a state without SYG laws. It would show that he did not retreat. In Florida, the fact that he followed him doesn't matter. And this is why STG laws are very relevant here. Other than your friends, i haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.

[Chicopee John]

>>The point is, the following is probably key in a state without SYG laws. It would show that he did not retreat. In Florida, the fact that he followed him doesn't matter. And this is why STG laws are very relevant here. Other than your friends, i haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.>>

 

 

Let's play Florida does not have SYG laws.

 

Whatever went down went down.

 

What is Zimmerman charged with, if anything?

 

Why?

 

He said v He said and one He is DOA. One witness, credible or not.

[Westside Steve]

We don't have to play that hypothetical because it's impossible. We know Martin followed Zimmerman, both from the 911 call and from Martin's girlfriend's call. If Martin isn't followed by Zimmerman there isn't a confrontation and this never happens.

 

The point is, the following is probably key in a state without SYG laws. It would show that he did not retreat. In Florida, the fact that he followed him doesn't matter. And this is why STG laws are very relevant here. Other than your friends, i haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.

One more time.

There is nothing illegal about following someone in a public space.

No one has suggested zimmeeman threatened martin.

Therefore martin had no right to attack.

WSS

[Chicopee John]

>>The point is, the following is probably key in a state without SYG laws. It would show that he did not retreat. In Florida, the fact that he followed him doesn't matter. And this is why STG laws are very relevant here. Other than your friends, i haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.>>

 

 

Let's play Florida does not have SYG laws.

 

Whatever went down went down.

 

What is Zimmerman charged with, if anything?

 

Why?

 

He said v He said and one He is DOA. One witness, credible or not.>>

 

 

On second thought, maybe SYG Laws don't necessarily change the charge, but it makes it more difficlut to get a conviction of that charge.

 

That could be where Heck is coming from.

 

No way Murder 1 gets applied as there was no pre-determination.

[Westside Steve]

On second thought, maybe SYG Laws don't necessarily change the charge, but it makes it more difficlut to get a conviction of that charge.

 

That could be where Heck is coming from.

 

No way Murder 1 gets applied as there was no pre-determination.

And murder 2 calls for "depravity."

The injuries pretty clearly say self defense unless something completely unknown comes up.

The person who could benefit from syg would have been martin had he been able to prove he felt threatened.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Heck almost wants to make me vomit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

>>The point is, the following is probably key in a state without SYG laws. It would show that he did not retreat. In Florida, the fact that he followed him doesn't matter. And this is why STG laws are very relevant here. Other than your friends, i haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.>>

 

 

Let's play Florida does not have SYG laws.

 

Whatever went down went down.

 

What is Zimmerman charged with, if anything?

 

Why?

 

He said v He said and one He is DOA. One witness, credible or not.

 

It becomes easier to make the state's case, which is that Zimmeran profiled him, then followed him and confronted him, when he would have a legal duty to retreat if possible. The prosecution would have a lower standard to meet than they do with the STG law in place.

[heckofajobbrownie]

 

On second thought, maybe SYG Laws don't necessarily change the charge, but it makes it more difficlut to get a conviction of that charge.

 

That could be where Heck is coming from.

 

No way Murder 1 gets applied as there was no pre-determination.

 

Read this one second. And yes, that's what I'm getting at. If I'm understanding the law correctly, it's like trying to come up with five reasons why someone is guilty instead of three.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And murder 2 calls for "depravity."

The injuries pretty clearly say self defense unless something completely unknown comes up.

The person who could benefit from syg would have been martin had he been able to prove he felt threatened.

WSS

 

 

Here's the Florida law for murder two:

 

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[heckofajobbrownie]

One more time.

There is nothing illegal about following someone in a public space.

No one has suggested zimmeeman threatened martin.

Therefore martin had no right to attack.

WSS

 

Not suggesting it's illegal to follow him in and of itself. But if you read the affidavit, the "following" is key to the prosecution's case. It's part of the narrative that says Zimmerman should have let the boy walk, but profiled him, followed him, while armed, and that according to Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him at the time, confronted Martin, who wanted to walk away, and started an altercation.

 

Here's David French from the National Review, commenting on the affidavit:

 

I read with great interest the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in the Trayvon Martin case (thanks, Robert, for linking). While the affidavit is quite brief and lacks detail, it does contain three key factual assertions, that — if proven — will vindicate those who called for Zimmerman’s arrest.

 

First, the affidavit clearly indicates that not only did Zimmerman follow Martin, he continued to follow Martin in spite of the dispatcher’s admonition to the contrary. The transcript seems somewhat ambiguous — initially indicating that Zimmerman followed Martin but later portions also seem to indicate that Zimmerman may have stopped, at least to continue communicating with the dispatcher. But that transcript, of course, is not the only relevant evidence on this point. There are Zimmerman’s statements to the police (which we haven’t seen), the statements from Martin’s girlfriend (which we also haven’t seen), and there is also (presumably) some degree of forensic evidence locating both the initial call and the actual scene of the shooting.

 

Second, the affidavit indicates that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin, but it’s agnostic on who initiated the “struggle.” Here’s the exact quote: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” If the prosecutor can prove that Zimmerman continued his pursuit to the point of initiating a confrontation with Martin, then it will be very, very difficult for Zimmerman to claim a “stand your ground” defense. In fact, Martin would be entitled to stand his ground. In other words, if the prosecutor can prove that Zimmerman pursued and confronted Martin, Zimmerman will have a challenge in proving despite those facts that Martin was the true aggressor in the “struggle” that “ensued.”

 

Third, the affidavit states that Martin’s mother has identified the cries for help as coming from her son. This could be the piece of evidence that seals Zimmerman’s fate. Unless he (or another witness) can clearly contradict Martin’s mother — or her testimony is sufficiently debunked on cross examination — a mother’s testimony identifying her slain son’s voice is powerful indeed. And if that was Martin calling for help, then that effectively crushes any argument that it was Zimmerman who “reasonably” feared for his life.

 

When an armed man shoots an unarmed man, unless there are compelling facts to the contrary, charges are expected and routine. As I’ve watched this case unfold and heard arguments pro and con, I think there’s probable cause for an arrest (and it’s really not close). Whether there’s proof sufficient for conviction will be determined when we see the state’s case. As of today, we’ve just peeked under the curtain.

[calfoxwc]

It becomes easier to make the state's case, which is that Zimmeran profiled him, then followed him and confronted him, when he would have a legal duty to retreat if possible. The prosecution would have a lower standard to meet than they do with the STG law in place.

Heck

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((*(*(*&YIUPOI

 

If lying and assuming makes the state's case easier, it is also invalid. Therefore, it does not make it easier in the long run. Zimmerman followed him. Apparently got out

of his car to follow Martin when Martin went out of sight. What was Martin doing? If he was trying to evade a dangerous person following him... how does Martin then

circle back, and catch Zimmerman getting back into his truck like he was advised?

 

Then Martin attacked him. Why? It's easier to guess that Martin was casing a place to rob, and became angry when he was identified as suspicious to authorities,

and tried to kill Zimmerman to prevent him from identifying him later, after he robbed some place.

 

Other than that, Martin's attack makes no sense. Who here would do what Martin did, to someone you fear is following you and up to no good, when all you need to do,

is just get away, or knock on a door and ask someone to call the police? Or hide? It's impossible to prove profiling, when it's his actions that got Zimmerman's interest.

It is impossible to prove that Zimmerman confronted him, when he was getting back into his car he says, and no one else was there. He couldn't retreat, he says he

was attacked when trying to retreat back into his pickup. And the girlfriend heard him say he was being followed. She's hardly a witness to any wrongdoing by Zimmerman.

Martin could easily have been lying on the phone if he told her anything else. And, she is a biased witness at that. I doubt that she will be called to testify, or if she does,

it will come to nothing that the jury would entertain as valid new information.

 

the anti gun lobby, and the black "lobby" for Obamao's re-election are making up their own self serving scenario for political benefit.

 

They always do - the truth doesn't matter - it's the emotions that run the lies for manipulative benefit to their cause.

 

I predict Zimmerman will be cleared and found innocent. A charge of "involuntary manslaughter" would be a stretch, and that isn't what the charge is.

[calfoxwc]

IOW's, apparently, Martin was the AGGRESSOR, not realizing that Zimmerman was armed.

 

Zimmerman is lucky he wasn't injured severely, brain wise, permanently, or killed, I think, from the testimony of the witness who SAW and heard what was

 

happening..

[MLD Woody]

IOW's, apparently, Martin was the AGGRESSOR, not realizing that Zimmerman was armed.

 

Zimmerman is lucky he wasn't injured severely, brain wise, permanently, or killed, I think, from the testimony of the witness who SAW and heard what was

 

happening..

 

Cal... you just taught me internet slang