If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   FL's "stand Your ground" defense has worked in cases where the attacker was running at the shooter backwards or even cleverly lying prone on the ground to lull them into a false sense of security   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 283
    More: Florida, legal defense, America First, Sunnyvale, California, reasonable beliefs, waste of time, security, investigation  
•       •       •

7014 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jun 2012 at 2:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-05 02:28:12 PM
Reading the original article, most of the cases they use as "bad" only look that way because the writer left out all sorts of important details - while leaving in a lot of unimportant ones that confuse the issue.

"Soon after the filing of a "stand your ground'' motion, prosecutors agreed to a deal in which Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and got three years in prison."

In other words, it was a half-assed case to begin with, and "stand your ground" probably had nothing to do with it.

"A Seventh-day Adventist was acting erratically, doing cartwheels through an apartment complex parking lot, pounding on cars and apartment windows and setting off alarms. A tenant who felt threatened by the man's behavior shot and killed him. He was not charged."

What the heck does the guy being a supposed Seventh Day Adventist have to do with anything? It doesn't give you immunity from being a violent crazy person...

The big message to take home is that defense attorneys are claiming "stand your ground" in a lot of cases where it doesn't apply, and prosecutors don't like the extra paperwork.

You know, like all of those cases where prosecutors are filing dozens of extra, unrelated charges - where defense attorneys don't like the paperwork.

Basically, prosecutors are whining because they don't have as many slam-dunk murder prosecutions to make their statistics look better.
 
2012-06-05 02:28:27 PM
ChipNASA:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-g r ound-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense

Does that clarify things?
 
2012-06-05 02:28:30 PM

karmaceutical: If nothing else, Martin's case will bring this ugliness into the light of day. Not saying anything will change, but at least more people will know the thought process behind "stand your ground" laws and be rightfully sick to their stomachs.


I was on record as predicting exactly this outcome when these laws were passed. I KNEW that messing with a balance worked out over 1,000 year of common law was a bad idea. The thing I couldn't figure out was WHY they were doing it. It wasn't like there had been a recent high profile case where somebody went to jail for a self-defense killing, or a concerted grass-roots outcry to change the law (and in fact every cop and prosecutor in the state came out against it). The reason, as it has finally come to light, is sickening beyond belief. The Law was more or less written by an NRA lobbyist because the organization needed a new gun-rights "win" to trumpet in NRA fundraising letter.
 
2012-06-05 02:30:10 PM

Raoul Eaton: Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

***

One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim - and still went free.

Link from the actual source article.


Was that in season or out of season? What are the license fees? Can I bag my limit? Do I have to take them to a weigh station afterwords or can I just field dress them where they drop?
 
2012-06-05 02:30:22 PM

Vkingbanna: But the woman who was getting beaten by her husband wasn't standing her ground in shooting him.


but she was black. Black people with guns are scary and should be locked up.
 
2012-06-05 02:31:31 PM
Has anyone successfully stood their ground versus a police officer in Florida?
 
2012-06-05 02:31:41 PM

tricycleracer: [stand-your-ground-law.s3.amazonaws.com image 619x962]


I don't give a shiat whether the person on the receiving end was armed or not. I also don't give a shiat whether the perp was a drug dealer(as the article brow beats you with). I care that the person responsible for the action had reason to fear for their life while doing a legal activity. Now, this Zimmerman guy obviously instigated this shait with a bit of stalking and assault of his own, so no go for him, but if some person tries to assault me I don't give a shiat whether hes armed or not. Its not my problem if he has reckless disregard for his own life. you know the risks when you commit the crime
 
2012-06-05 02:32:14 PM

Doc Daneeka: Mambo Bananapatch: > In 200 Florida cases where the "stand your ground" defense was invoked, 70 percent of defendants were let go...These included cases where the defendant had shot someone in the back, or while the victim was lying down....In a third of "stand your ground" defenses, the defendant started the fight that ended in the shooting and still went free.

Gotta read that a few times and really absorb it.

This is sick in a way that redefines sick.

Yeah, but it's all worth it if you get to walk around and pretend you're John Wayne.


I assume you're referring to John Wayne Gacy, and just forgot to add his last name.
 
2012-06-05 02:32:21 PM
Florida's "stand your ground" law was passed in 2005. It goes beyond most states' self-defense statutes because it says that people in public places do not have a duty to attempt to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force if they feel threatened.

/Odd..Illinois law says that you should try to retreat if possible before using deadly force.
 
2012-06-05 02:32:58 PM

adeist69: kingoomieiii: Once again, the point of Stand Your Ground is to create special rights for gun owners.


No, the point of "No Duty to Retreat" is that we don't have to run and hide while calling the police like pussies. Suck it.


The fact that you'd rather take a human life rather than take the opportunity to retreat in perfect safety (the only time retreat was required under the old law) because you are afraid to look like "a pussy" means that not only should you not be allowed to own a gun but you shouldn't be trusted with so much as a sharpened pencil
 
2012-06-05 02:35:20 PM
Does this mean that all the Farkers who still think that Zimmerman will be convicted will finally snap into reality?

Whether you think it's just or not, it seems pretty blatantly obvious that, based on the wording of the law and the previous cases decided by it, that Zimmerman will go free.
 
2012-06-05 02:35:50 PM

Dimensio: A leg shot is, legally, the same "deadly force" as is a shot to the center of mass. If a shot to the leg is justifiable, then a shot to the chest is also justifiable.


An asshat missing the point says what?
 
2012-06-05 02:36:04 PM

auckerman: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-g r ound-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense


thesemblog.com


auckerman - 0

Internets - +2




/quit while you're ahead
 
2012-06-05 02:36:10 PM
As the resident Fark Self Defense Expert (to the point of cringing at the term "Self Defense"), I'm the first to say that Florida's Stand Your Ground law is broken and hopelessly unjust. There is a difference between "No duty to retreat," and "enabling irresponsible gun fetishists to murder with impunity with no fear of consequences."

My approach to legal "self defense" involves 4 steps: Awareness, Detection, Evasion, pre-emptive offense. I'm fine with killing someone in an ambush in fact I find it preferable. So long as you've done everything you can to get away from the fight safely. If safe retreat is not possible or immediately evidently so, by all means empty that magazine. The approach that Zimmerman and his ilk take in self defense is reprehensible. That the FL legislature does not see the immediately glaring problems with how they instituted this law is very troubling.
 
2012-06-05 02:36:28 PM

Magorn: The reason, as it has finally come to light, is sickening beyond belief. The Law was more or less written by an NRA lobbyist because the organization needed a new gun-rights "win" to trumpet in NRA fundraising letter.


Gun laws are already more lax here than in any other modern, industrialized nation. Americans have rights of of firearm possession, transport, concealment, and use that are simply unimaginable in any other first world country.

This creates a pickle for the NRA. How do they keep fundraising when they've already won in dominating fashion? What gun rights are there to fight for when Americans already have unprecedented gun rights. The only solution is to create new rights, such as the right to shoot people in situations where it is not necessary to do so.
 
2012-06-05 02:37:21 PM

elffster: Arkanaut: Meanwhile, if you're a black woman, you're not allowed to "stand your ground":

Link

/NRA didn't raise any money for her defense either.

Shes not white enough to be set free.


I don't suppose leaving the scene of the conflict to fetch her gun then returning several minutes later to "stand her ground" had anything to do with it. It was probably just racism.
 
2012-06-05 02:40:49 PM

Is... is that Will Riker?

l2.yimg.com
 
2012-06-05 02:41:17 PM

umad: I don't suppose leaving the scene of the conflict to fetch her gun then returning several minutes later to "stand her ground" had anything to do with it. It was probably just racism.


Don't bother. This whole thread is a huge clusterfark of derp, on both sides.
 
2012-06-05 02:41:26 PM
In 200 Florida cases where the "stand your ground" defense was invoked, 70 percent of defendants were let go...

Never mind that "stand your ground" only really mattered in a small percentage of those cases, it was "invoked" so that must be it...

These included cases where the defendant had shot someone in the back, or while the victim was lying down....In a third of "stand your ground" defenses, the defendant started the fight that ended in the shooting and still went free.

Mambo Bananapatch:
Gotta read that a few times and really absorb it.

Make sure to "absorb" the part where "invoking" it doesn't mean that was the reason they got off. All it means is that the defense attorney threw it into their case, along with everything else. "Shooting someone in the back" also doesn't mean much - they could have spun as the shooter was pulling the trigger, or been part of a group who were attacking one person (like the guy who shot another "in the back of the head" when two guys were attacking him on his boat, at night).
 
2012-06-05 02:43:59 PM

auckerman: There's one that was caught on video of a guy running away, full speed, and the person chasing him with a knife kill him. Self defense, because they running way stopped running and turned towards the killer.


FFS! Is English your primary language? I know most of these sorts of comments are probably due to auto correct but there are so many of this nature now that Fark threads are about as legible as youtube comments! I know all of you can't be as drunk as I am.
 
2012-06-05 02:48:07 PM
Got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel alright.
Got an Uzi by my pillow, helps me sleep a little better at night.
There's no feeling any greater.
Than to shoot first then ask questions later.
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day.

Well, you can't take my guns away, I got a constitutional right.
Yeah, I gotta be ready if the Commies attack us tonight.
I'll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson.
That ought to teach them all a darn good lesson.
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day.
 
2012-06-05 02:49:41 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: > In 200 Florida cases where the "stand your ground" defense was invoked, 70 percent of defendants were let go...These included cases where the defendant had shot someone in the back, or while the victim was lying down....In a third of "stand your ground" defenses, the defendant started the fight that ended in the shooting and still went free.

Gotta read that a few times and really absorb it.

This is sick in a way that redefines sick.


Sure makes me glad that the screechiest gun trolls finally got their gun humping law passed. I thought that after they passed we'd here less fearmongering about a certain type of person breaking into homes, raping daughters and killing sons, but sadly that hasn't come to pass either.

If the law was restricted to providing immunity in the case when the killer did not provoke or escalate the situation that led to the killing and that the killer was objectively in fear of life (NOT subjectively, his own opinion on the matter is why so many are being let off), it would be a decent law. But as written now, it's nothing more than a shield to murder, all that has to be done is coming up with a story and sticking to it.
 
2012-06-05 02:50:50 PM
It's also really interesting to go through the paper's own database:

Here

It turns out that not many those cases were actual grants of immunity - only 36 out of the 192 fatal cases they mention. There were 26 "guilty" and 16 "acquitted." The rest are "not charged," "pending," or "plea."

Not exactly a strong case against the stand your ground law...
 
2012-06-05 02:51:44 PM

DisregardTheFollowing: auckerman: There's one that was caught on video of a guy running away, full speed, and the person chasing him with a knife kill him. Self defense, because they running way stopped running and turned towards the killer.

FFS! Is English your primary language? I know most of these sorts of comments are probably due to auto correct but there are so many of this nature now that Fark threads are about as legible as youtube comments! I know all of you can't be as drunk as I am.


Who the fark can read one of these threads without taking a few shots to get through the comments?

/hear, not here, in my last post.
 
2012-06-05 02:52:25 PM

Silly Jesus: Damnit Subby...

Your "article" is merely a long winded link to a several day old article, which is a rehashing of a month old article from the same "newspaper."


Yet you read it and then took the time to comment.
 
2012-06-05 02:56:39 PM

Millennium: Sounds more like a problem with case law than with the actual statute.


This. It doesn't matter how the law reads when the people deciding the case are idiots (i.e., Floridians).
 
2012-06-05 02:56:55 PM
What's the complaint about killing an unarmed person?

Seriously, if I'm a 5'2" fat nerd, and a 6'3" biker built like Hulk Hogan (in his good days) comes running at me with murder in his eyes - I'm emptying the clip in him. People really have a problem with it because he was unarmed?

No, not every case would be like that - but saying "he killed an unarmed man" is a useless description.

Also, that article is biased, and lacking on anything approaching useful details.
 
2012-06-05 02:57:53 PM

susler: Silly Jesus: Damnit Subby...

Your "article" is merely a long winded link to a several day old article, which is a rehashing of a month old article from the same "newspaper."

Yet you read it and then took the time to comment.


I clicked on it thinking it was something new, and was disappointed when I saw that it was merely a link to two other old articles that I had previously read.

/sorry for taking up space in the comment section with a comment
 
2012-06-05 02:58:52 PM

JRoo: Shut up and buy more guns.

Everyone is out to get you.

Don't stand for some idiot who looks at you funny after you've had a bad day.

Most everyone is controlled by demons anyway.


This message brought to you by the Republican National Party.
 
2012-06-05 03:00:54 PM
ChipNASA:

You failed at using pasted link on fark. Note for future reference, when someone pastes a link in a web page, rather than making a HTML HREF, a web site will normally add spaces to said link to prevent people from making the page unreadable because a line is too wide to fit on said page as intended.

Try again.
 
2012-06-05 03:01:26 PM
This law is so vague, it's a miracle there are any Floridians still alive.

So if I'm in Florida and I get into a fight with someone in a public place, I get to kill them? Maybe even if someone just threatens me, I get to kill them? Or if I just think someone is going to hurt me, I get to kill them?
 
2012-06-05 03:01:53 PM

Silly Jesus: Does this mean that all the Farkers who still think that Zimmerman will be convicted will finally snap into reality?

Whether you think it's just or not, it seems pretty blatantly obvious that, based on the wording of the law and the previous cases decided by it, that Zimmerman will go free.


I agree(I said as much when everyone here was biatching that they hadn't arrested him yet. This is a bear of a case to prove as a crime with the law written the way it is and the lack of witnesses), but I do think they wouldn't have eventually charged him if they didn't feel they could make a compelling case. Otherwise, there is no reason to wait as long as they did in the first place.
 
2012-06-05 03:02:39 PM

auckerman: ChipNASA:

You failed at using pasted link on fark. Note for future reference, when someone pastes a link in a web page, rather than making a HTML HREF, a web site will normally add spaces to said link to prevent people from making the page unreadable because a line is too wide to fit on said page as intended.

Try again.


OOOOHHHH! I always wondered by Fark does that. I hate when the layout gets too wide for the device, so that is a clever feature indeed! Thanks for 'splainin'!
 
2012-06-05 03:04:29 PM

here to help: Is... is that Will Riker?

[l2.yimg.com image 310x359]


l2.yimg.com

No, it's Robert Blake
 
2012-06-05 03:08:53 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: What's the complaint about killing an unarmed person?

Seriously, if I'm a 5'2" fat nerd, and a 6'3" biker built like Hulk Hogan (in his good days) comes running at me with murder in his eyes - I'm emptying the clip in him. People really have a problem with it because he was unarmed?

No, not every case would be like that - but saying "he killed an unarmed man" is a useless description.

Also, that article is biased, and lacking on anything approaching useful details.


It's the same reason that a picture of an 8 year old was used...sensationalism to stir up the mindless masses who "think" first with their emotions.
 
2012-06-05 03:09:27 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: What's the complaint about killing an unarmed person?

Seriously, if I'm a 5'2" fat nerd, and a 6'3" biker built like Hulk Hogan (in his good days) comes running at me with murder in his eyes - I'm emptying the clip in him. People really have a problem with it because he was unarmed?

No, not every case would be like that - but saying "he killed an unarmed man" is a useless description.

Also, that article is biased, and lacking on anything approaching useful details.


Brings up a good point. Being unarmed does not mean that you are incapable of inflecting bodily harm on another person. Even if it was the other way around. It takes very little pressure to the windpipe to crush it. (a little harder if you want to rip it out road house style).

But there really isn't a reason I can think of that would justify shooting someone who is running away or is on the ground. Those are pretty submissive acts.
 
2012-06-05 03:10:18 PM
See, in the south the white folks have to find some way to be able to shoot the black folks legally.

Stand Your Ground.

Sounds good don't it?

/it sucks
//big time
 
2012-06-05 03:14:50 PM

Arkanaut: Meanwhile, if you're a black woman, you're not allowed to "stand your ground":

Link

/NRA didn't raise any money for her defense either.


Her mistake was firing into the wall instead of her husband.
 
2012-06-05 03:15:13 PM
When the cops are armed and kicking down my door because of what I did to the little neighbor girl, am I allowed to stand my ground then?
 
2012-06-05 03:15:30 PM

shtychkn: But there really isn't a reason I can think of that would justify shooting someone who is running away or is on the ground. Those are pretty submissive acts.


And that's because of a poorly written law, which I don't think anyone is arguing could be touched up a bit. You aren't standing your ground if you have to take ground to commit the act.
 
2012-06-05 03:15:35 PM

farker99: See, in the south the white folks have to find some way to be able to shoot the black folks legally.

Stand Your Ground.

Sounds good don't it?

/it sucks
//big time


Race Card, yay!

Also, know what percentage of these cases involve a white guy shooting a black guy?
 
2012-06-05 03:15:43 PM

Andulamb: This law is so vague, it's a miracle there are any Floridians still alive.

So if I'm in Florida and I get into a fight with someone in a public place, I get to kill them? Maybe even if someone just threatens me, I get to kill them? Or if I just think someone is going to hurt me, I get to kill them?


Actually, if anyone ever bothered to read all the laws on the books and apply SYG in context with the other laws already ON the books (i.e. the pre-existing florida law that indicates self defense is not claimable in cases where the person claiming it started the fight to begin with unless the situation shows a massive, unrealistic escalation such as "well, he stole my wallet and I ran after him to get it back, then he pulled a gun on me and threatened my life so I defended myself"), they'd see that the SYG law makes perfect sense.

The problem is not entirely the law (although apparently since lawyers and juries can't be bothered to study the law and judges don't bother applying the laws as they were intended/written, it's easier to blame the law...), it's more that lawyers come up with creative excuses, the world is never black and white, and GED lawyers on Fark know more than anyone else on how to properly write law and govern.
 
2012-06-05 03:16:15 PM
umad:
elffster: Arkanaut: Meanwhile, if you're a black woman, you're not allowed to "stand your ground":

Link

/NRA didn't raise any money for her defense either.

Shes not white enough to be set free.

I don't suppose leaving the scene of the conflict to fetch her gun then returning several minutes later to "stand her ground" had anything to do with it. It was probably just racism.


In Canada, women have killed their abusive husbands in their sleep and walked for it. And I believe both they and the courts were justified. Making an abuse victim "defend herself" by waiting until the abuser is kicking the living crap out of her is not justice.

I'm not saying that this woman was in terror for her life or was even abused, but she may have believed that fetching that gun may have been the only safe way for her to demand that her opponent (her angry estranged husband) leave her alone. At any rate her sentence sounds ridiculous, more of a condemnation of mandatory sentencing than of "castle doctrine". It sounds like at worst, she should have got a few years of menacing or something like that.
 
2012-06-05 03:16:34 PM
I love Florida.
 
2012-06-05 03:17:02 PM

stonicus: When the cops are armed and kicking down my door because of what I did to the little neighbor girl, am I allowed to stand my ground then?


Not sure if serious...
 
2012-06-05 03:17:26 PM

cirby: Reading the original article, most of the cases they use as "bad" only look that way because the writer left out all sorts of important details - while leaving in a lot of unimportant ones that confuse the issue.

"Soon after the filing of a "stand your ground'' motion, prosecutors agreed to a deal in which Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and got three years in prison."

In other words, it was a half-assed case to begin with, and "stand your ground" probably had nothing to do with it.

"A Seventh-day Adventist was acting erratically, doing cartwheels through an apartment complex parking lot, pounding on cars and apartment windows and setting off alarms. A tenant who felt threatened by the man's behavior shot and killed him. He was not charged."

What the heck does the guy being a supposed Seventh Day Adventist have to do with anything? It doesn't give you immunity from being a violent crazy person...

The big message to take home is that defense attorneys are claiming "stand your ground" in a lot of cases where it doesn't apply, and prosecutors don't like the extra paperwork.

You know, like all of those cases where prosecutors are filing dozens of extra, unrelated charges - where defense attorneys don't like the paperwork.

Basically, prosecutors are whining because they don't have as many slam-dunk murder prosecutions to make their statistics look better.


QFT.
 
2012-06-05 03:18:02 PM

Andulamb: This law is so vague, it's a miracle there are any Floridians still alive.

So if I'm in Florida and I get into a fight with someone in a public place, I get to kill them? Maybe even if someone just threatens me, I get to kill them? Or if I just think someone is going to hurt me, I get to kill them?


According to the law, you can go up and just punch a random person in the face. If he fights back and you feel threatened, you can kill him. You will probably be charged with the initial assault, but not murder.

So basically, if you own a gun and are willing to take a punch to the face, you can go pick a fight with anyone you hate and then kill them legally.
 
2012-06-05 03:19:04 PM

Silly Jesus: stonicus: When the cops are armed and kicking down my door because of what I did to the little neighbor girl, am I allowed to stand my ground then?

Not sure if serious...


Ummm, no... it was that other guy who did the stuff to the little neighbor girl! I swear!!!!
 
2012-06-05 03:20:27 PM

Vkingbanna: But the woman who was getting beaten by her husband wasn't standing her ground in shooting him.


You silly baboo, these kinds of laws only apply to white Christian men.
 
2012-06-05 03:20:39 PM

Andulamb: This law is so vague, it's a miracle there are any Floridians still alive.

So if I'm in Florida and I get into a fight with someone in a public place, I get to kill them? Maybe even if someone just threatens me, I get to kill them? Or if I just think someone is going to hurt me, I get to kill them?


The answer seems to depend partly on your race, gender, and what county you're in. If you're going to Florida, just stick to Disney World, which gets to make its own laws and doesn't seem to have a big shooting problem.

///but they won't let you dress like Tinkerbell...
 
Displayed 50 of 283 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report