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 51
    More: Florida, legal defense, America First, Sunnyvale, California, reasonable beliefs, waste of time, security, investigation  
•       •       •

7018 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-05 02:32:58 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:24:32 PM  
3 votes:

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


The only reasonable way to defend yourself is to Stand Your Ground before the other guy does. I can't see that backfiring in any way.
2012-06-05 01:03:01 PM  
3 votes:
Once again, the point of Stand Your Ground is to create special rights for gun owners.
2012-06-05 03:20:47 PM  
2 votes:

No Such Agency: 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.


She also shot in the direction of two children...

Also, a warning shot indicates that you aren't in fear for your life, thus negating the SYG defense.
2012-06-05 02:36:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:31:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:26:10 PM  
2 votes:
I see a big business opportunity in Fla, for legal human hunting.

For a fee, we'll arm you and place you in a situation where you feel the need to defend yourself under our "Stand Your Ground Law". Afterwards we'll take a photo of you and your trophy.
2012-06-05 02:21:54 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-06-05 02:18:22 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-06-05 02:14:17 PM  
2 votes:
southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

First you need to yell its coming right at us. Shoot it!
2012-06-05 02:06:45 PM  
2 votes:

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


Fixed.
2012-06-06 04:39:34 PM  
1 votes:

NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: Also, if you are of the opinion that the word of Zimmerman's girlfriend should be taken as the gospel, then you should also take the word of Martin's Twitter and Facebook friends etc. as the gospel.

Zimmerman's girlfriend call the police, twice, and reported violent actions by Zimmerman. I put a lot more weight on a person who actually calls the police and makes a report than I do on a one line tweet that we don't even know was actually directed to Martin.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I've said above, I've been privy to a number of women flippantly calling the police over "domestic" nonsense. There weren't any injuries reported in these incidents and Zimmerman took out a restraining order against her as well. Also, the male is not always the aggressor. So, yeah, I don't give those situations any more weight than I do the Tweets and Facebook posts.

And I put an enormous amount of weight on the fact that Zimmerman basically admitted to assaulting the officer and was required to take anger management classes.

The police officer was not in uniform. He was undercover and was attempting to restrain one of Zimmerman's friends. Zimmerman was coming to the aid of his friend. There is no indication that he knew beforehand that the guy was a police officer. On top of that, his charge of felony assault on a police officer isn't something that is just taken lightly in the courts, if it's legit. The charges against him were dropped with his agreement to take some classes. Sounds like a pretty weak case to me. I do enjoy how people always leave out the details when bringing up this case though. Jumping on a uniformed officer (which I am sure is what you'd like to imply) is DRASTICALLY different from shoving one that is undercover and accosting your friend.

As I've said, and I stand by it, Zimmerman was a greater risk to the safety of certain members the neighborhood than Martin was to anyone.

Do you outright discount any good that he did? His tutoring of troubled youth? His community activism in getting justice for a beaten homeless man? Do those carry no weight in your assessment of his character? Martin had a questionable character as well. And judging by Zimmerman's face and head, wasn't exactly the harmless angel that you would wish to paint him as being.

We have Martin who was walking home, and short of being targeted, followed and killed by Zimmerman, we would have never heard of any of these people. We have Zimmerman who was an armed man with a history of violence and an attitude, and he was gawd-damn sure not gonna let another one of these assholes get away.

Someone should be able to walk through their neighborhood and look at someone in the distance without being approached and attacked by them. Looking out for your community is a character flaw now apparently.

Is Zimmerman guilty of a crime, maybe, even probably, not, but he damn sure is no one to be admired. And this case is not one anyone should use to hang their hat on. Not CCW supporters. Not SYG type law supporters. Zimmerman brought this on himself.

I don't know if he's a role model or not (I don't automatically discount the good things that he has done, as you do, and I obviously don't see his vigilance as pure evil), but I certainly don't see him in the solely negative light that you do. I think he had good intentions and shiat went bad. As I've said before, I've observed suspicious people in my old gentrifying crime-ridden neighborhood and called the cops. I was outside of my house and even moved down the sidewalk in the direction that they were moving so that I could maintain visual contact with them. I wasn't cowering behind my locked door and wetting my pants. Does that make me a horrible person? Would I be a horrible person if one of the guys (who were later arrested on numerous charges) that I kept an eye on had turned on me and fractured my nose, blackened both of my eyes and helped my head strike the ground before I shot him to preserve my life?

2012-06-06 03:06:14 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: And no, no one is going to search them out. This will only be a problem if a high-RWA or double-high person winds up in a confrontation, much as a two-story building will only be a problem when a paraplegic needs something from the second story. One sentence not only fine-tunes the law, it gets rid of the problem altogether. Yes, there would need to be some standard for 'recognizable by the average person'. But there would be a very large loophole closed.


Says you, that remains to be seen as to whether it simply swings the law the other direction and makes it damn near impossible to apply the law where it's justifiably applied.

Fear of the hypothetical is absurd when you have other issues which are far more real.
2012-06-06 03:05:34 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I don't think that such a "loophole" can be closed though. Besides, I look at it in the same light as the "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongfully hold one innocent man" concept.

See above post.

I think, ultimately, it's incredibly naive to believe that, short of making laws that are so incredibly complex as to be simultaneously unenforceable and so broadly sweeping that they could be applied to anyone or everyone no matter the circumstances to prevent them the protections the law is designed to grant. I'm sorry, but this is not a case where we can say "yes, if we just do X, it will prevent more people from getting away with things".

It's the same basic justification people use to argue for more control of business by government, or more government programs, more government spending, etc. etc. etc.: oh, but if we only do this to close these loopholes or that to better control things, then what we're trying to stop won't happen", not realizing that doing so hurts no one but the truly innocent who do NOT have intentions of gaming the system.

First, are you seriously arguing that anyone at all, regardless of their mental state, has the right to shoot someone in the back as they're walking away? That's what closing the loophole will address. It will not take away anyone's rights, because those rights never farking existed. Second, the reason this needs to be addressed is because of the group of people in the link I gave you. Seriously. Read it. I linked it for a reason. If I made a law saying 'anyone can run a light' and meant to say 'anyone can run a red light when there's no one else around and it's 3 AM', why on Earth would I assume people wouldn't start running green lights?

Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Or we could just state in the law that the attacker cannot shoot if the person is making a gestu ...


Your specific suggestion for closing the loophole simply would not work. There may be another way out there, but your suggestion isn't it. Hint: I can give the signal, you put down your weapon, I immediately raise mine and shoot you. Ta-da!

As Kit Fister said above. You would have to add so many caveats to it to make it water tight that it would be 10,000 pages long and become meaningless.

I scanned your linked article...I know that those people exist, but this law can't be structured in such a way that it takes them into account and at the same time remain effective for everyone else. Either you have the law with loopholes, or you do away with it altogether.
2012-06-06 02:26:43 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a group of people who are hardwired to use this law the wrong way, and we currently have no mechanism for catching these abusers of the law. There is one case where, as it turns out, it's not a good example, but the other two cases may actually be a very good example of those times.

Yes, there are times where Stand Your Ground is a wholeheartedly good law, which you outlined quite well. There is a group of people documented by psychology who will abuse it. We need to address both.

Unfortunately, there are pathological predators that abuse just about any legal loophole they can. Congress critters are a classic example. Which is better: obfuscate the law to stop the few who would abuse it and, along with judges who are already biased in one way or another, deny protection to the vast majority of people who the law is meant to protect with an 'oh well, gotta break a few eggs' approach, or do you accept that the law will never be perfect, no matter HOW complex it's written, and accept that the law can only lay a groundwork and it takes competent people in the judicial system to make sure that those who truly are guilty are found guilty?

The problem with the crowd that wants to take away guns/restrict guns/drop CCW/whatever is that they are treating a symptom, they are not addressing the problem directly. The only way to do so logically is to push for more education and to place responsibility where it belongs. Now that is certainly easier said than done.

Or we could just state in the law that the attacker cannot shoot if the person is making a gesture recognizable by the average person as an attempt to disengage. Problem solved.

Not sure if serious...

/This isn't actually just one or two sociopaths, BTW, this is a very large group of people. Your argument would hold a lot of merit except for that.

Citation Needed (as in specific evidence that anyone has read this law and gone out searching for someone that they could set up to kill within the framework of the law so that they could get away with murder)

2012-06-06 02:25:29 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I don't think that such a "loophole" can be closed though. Besides, I look at it in the same light as the "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongfully hold one innocent man" concept.

See above post.


I think, ultimately, it's incredibly naive to believe that, short of making laws that are so incredibly complex as to be simultaneously unenforceable and so broadly sweeping that they could be applied to anyone or everyone no matter the circumstances to prevent them the protections the law is designed to grant. I'm sorry, but this is not a case where we can say "yes, if we just do X, it will prevent more people from getting away with things".

It's the same basic justification people use to argue for more control of business by government, or more government programs, more government spending, etc. etc. etc.: oh, but if we only do this to close these loopholes or that to better control things, then what we're trying to stop won't happen", not realizing that doing so hurts no one but the truly innocent who do NOT have intentions of gaming the system.
2012-06-06 02:21:44 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a group of people who are hardwired to use this law the wrong way, and we currently have no mechanism for catching these abusers of the law. There is one case where, as it turns out, it's not a good example, but the other two cases may actually be a very good example of those times.

Yes, there are times where Stand Your Ground is a wholeheartedly good law, which you outlined quite well. There is a group of people documented by psychology who will abuse it. We need to address both.

Unfortunately, there are pathological predators that abuse just about any legal loophole they can. Congress critters are a classic example. Which is better: obfuscate the law to stop the few who would abuse it and, along with judges who are already biased in one way or another, deny protection to the vast majority of people who the law is meant to protect with an 'oh well, gotta break a few eggs' approach, or do you accept that the law will never be perfect, no matter HOW complex it's written, and accept that the law can only lay a groundwork and it takes competent people in the judicial system to make sure that those who truly are guilty are found guilty?

The problem with the crowd that wants to take away guns/restrict guns/drop CCW/whatever is that they are treating a symptom, they are not addressing the problem directly. The only way to do so logically is to push for more education and to place responsibility where it belongs. Now that is certainly easier said than done.

Or we could just state in the law that the attacker cannot shoot if the person is making a gesture recognizable by the average person as an attempt to disengage. Problem solved.

/This isn't actually just one or two sociopaths, BTW, this is a very large group of people. Your argument would hold a lot of merit except for that.


Unfortunately, whether it's 10 or 10,000, the point remains the same. You cannot deny the rights of everyone because some will abuse said rights.

That being said, adding verbiage to that effect is already a non-starter, because what exactly is recognizable by the average person as gesturing to disengage? would that not negate the cases where the person feigns disengaging in order to drop the guard of his quarry in order to soften them up for further attack? See, you can put in all the caveats you want, but the more you do, the more you strip the bill of the ability to protect those it was designed to protect.
2012-06-06 02:06:28 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus: It would be interesting if it were possible to design a study to determine if any of these people in these example cases thought about SYG prior to making their decision to shoot.

It's similar to people that argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to people committing murder. Maybe in a vary rare instance, but in the vast majority of murders, which are split second decisions made without a perfectly clear mind (adrenaline, tunnel vision etc.), people aren't consciously analyzing the consequences of their actions. That is done immediately afterwards.

I think that SYG is likely the same way. I doubt that many, if any, of these decisions to shoot were made with SYG actively in mind. It merely comes in to play later.

Hell, people here, after having read the statute 100 times, can't even figure it out. I highly doubt that these low lifes (mostly) are pondering the legal ramifications of a complex statute in the midst of a shoot out.

tl;dr
I don't buy into the notion that the SYG law changes the behavior of folks in the vast majority of these cases. It merely comes up as a defense after the fact and people assume that it was part of the decision making process during the commission of the crime.

I agree. Like I said, there's a group of people who are very likely to abuse the law to begin with. That's my problem with it--there's no addressing of the loophole. The law's basic principle is fine by me.


I don't think that such a "loophole" can be closed though. Besides, I look at it in the same light as the "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongfully hold one innocent man" concept.
2012-06-06 01:59:50 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a group of people who are hardwired to use this law the wrong way, and we currently have no mechanism for catching these abusers of the law. There is one case where, as it turns out, it's not a good example, but the other two cases may actually be a very good example of those times.

Yes, there are times where Stand Your Ground is a wholeheartedly good law, which you outlined quite well. There is a group of people documented by psychology who will abuse it. We need to address both.


Unfortunately, there are pathological predators that abuse just about any legal loophole they can. Congress critters are a classic example. Which is better: obfuscate the law to stop the few who would abuse it and, along with judges who are already biased in one way or another, deny protection to the vast majority of people who the law is meant to protect with an 'oh well, gotta break a few eggs' approach, or do you accept that the law will never be perfect, no matter HOW complex it's written, and accept that the law can only lay a groundwork and it takes competent people in the judicial system to make sure that those who truly are guilty are found guilty?

The problem with the crowd that wants to take away guns/restrict guns/drop CCW/whatever is that they are treating a symptom, they are not addressing the problem directly. The only way to do so logically is to push for more education and to place responsibility where it belongs. Now that is certainly easier said than done.
2012-06-06 01:44:07 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I know that facts get in the way of sensationalism and knee jerk emotional responses, but stick with me here for a second.

The incident where the guy was shot while laying on the ground...yeah, that was nearing the end of two people shooting at one another. Guns still work even if you are laying on your back while you use it, and bullets are hard to outrun. In other words, someone laying on their back with a gun pointed at you is still a pretty big threat to your life.

I didn't immediately find the details for the walking away / shot in back case, but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that it had some merit given how the above example was sensationalized by leaving out important details.

In the case of the person laying on his back, the question then becomes: Why was he on his back? Was he realistically able to lift the gun and fire it, or was he injured?

And more to the point: That's one case. You might be comfortable assuming the other cases have merit. I have a lot more experience with people who will unhesitatingly try to punish people they think are in the wrong, and that type of person usually loves guns and Stand Your Ground type laws because it lets them fantasize about punishing people via execution and getting away with it. Laws aren't made under the assumption that everyone's a good person, and when you do try to make laws that way, you get very bad situations arising. Laws work best when made under the idea that some people are assholes.


It would be interesting if it were possible to design a study to determine if any of these people in these example cases thought about SYG prior to making their decision to shoot.

It's similar to people that argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to people committing murder. Maybe in a vary rare instance, but in the vast majority of murders, which are split second decisions made without a perfectly clear mind (adrenaline, tunnel vision etc.), people aren't consciously analyzing the consequences of their actions. That is done immediately afterwards.

I think that SYG is likely the same way. I doubt that many, if any, of these decisions to shoot were made with SYG actively in mind. It merely comes in to play later.

Hell, people here, after having read the statute 100 times, can't even figure it out. I highly doubt that these low lifes (mostly) are pondering the legal ramifications of a complex statute in the midst of a shoot out.

tl;dr
I don't buy into the notion that the SYG law changes the behavior of folks in the vast majority of these cases. It merely comes up as a defense after the fact and people assume that it was part of the decision making process during the commission of the crime.
2012-06-06 01:11:16 PM  
1 votes:

PsiChick: Silly Jesus: PsiChick: Kit Fister: PsiChick: Silly Jesus:

I know that facts get in the way of sensationalism and knee jerk emotional responses, but stick with me here for a second.

The incident where the guy was shot while laying on the ground...yeah, that was nearing the end of two people shooting at one another. Guns still work even if you are laying on your back while you use it, and bullets are hard to outrun. In other words, someone laying on their back with a gun pointed at you is still a pretty big threat to your life.

I didn't immediately find the details for the walking away / shot in back case, but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that it had some merit given how the above example was sensationalized by leaving out important details.

In the case of the person laying on his back, the question then becomes: Why was he on his back? Was he realistically able to lift the gun and fire it, or was he injured?

And more to the point: That's one case. You might be comfortable assuming the other cases have merit. I have a lot more experience with people who will unhesitatingly try to punish people they think are in the wrong, and that type of person usually loves guns and Stand Your Ground type laws because it lets them fantasize about punishing people via execution and getting away with it. Laws aren't made under the assumption that everyone's a good person, and when you do try to make laws that way, you get very bad situations arising. Laws work best when made under the idea that some people are assholes.


So, instead of researching and finding out the merits of each case in question, you use your own presumptions and prejudices to make assumptions about the intent and facts of the case, whether or not they are supported. Sorta like all those conservatives calling Obama a socialist, or those liberals blaming bush for things he was only a figurehead for. No sir, don't let facts get in the way of a good hate-on.

That said, why was the guy on the ground? Maybe he was attempting to flee and tripped and fell. Maybe the guy pursuing him knocked him to the ground. Maybe someone else knocked him to the ground. Maybe the guy hurt himself and fell. Do you know? I don't. But I can think of a million scenarios where the person on the ground had a legitimate reason to shoot the other guy in the back and still be defending himself, and all of those scenarios are equally true until there is evidence that specifically rules them out.

Since I know you'll balk, consider:

I'm being pursued by one or more people who stopped me on the street, threatened harm if I didn't give over my valuables, etc. The threat pursues me as I'm attempting to disengage and I fall, or I've been knocked to the ground in place. I am now at a significant defensive disadvantage because have no mobility and am unable to retreat from the threat further without further exposing myself to harm. The guy has a weapon, or appears to be reaching for a weapon, gets distracted and turns around for a moment, and I seize on that opportunity, given body language and continued threats, to defend myself because I have no means of otherwise getting away or doing something. I happen to catch him turned around when I fire.

That's still reasonable self defense, because it is unclear that the threat is disengaged rather than simply checking to make sure there are no witnesses before escalating his attack.

However, you come along and see me on the ground and him with his back to me and me shooting him. Since you don't know the context or situation, all you see is a guy who appears to be the loser of a fight shoot a guy in the back.

Amazing what context does for the person.

Here's another, more classic example of the same argument of context:

You are a police officer who arrives on the scene and find a man holding a bloody knife over the body of a stabbing victim. Is this person the killer holding the murder weapon, or is this a good samaritan who has stopped to render aid to the victim and happens to be holding the knife because he pulled it out of the person he was attempting to help?

Clearly, some folks would automatically assume he's a murderer when he very easily could be guilty of nothing more than attempting to render assistance.
2012-06-05 06:40:44 PM  
1 votes:

21-37-42: 1. Per the medical examiner, Trayvon Martin had two injuries : the fatal gunshot wound to the chest and broken skin on his knuckles


No, he had an abrasion on his left ring finger, between the first and second knuckles.

I wonder if he had a ring on and got the abrasion when Zimmman stole it.

Also the GSW has a flat trajectory, which is consistent with the shooter and victim standing, as opposed to being in a struggle.
2012-06-05 04:44:16 PM  
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: Also there were some time before the shooting that witnesses say they heard them arguing and shouting at each other. then the screams for help when they were struggling. if they were arguing ,shouting, and asking each other questions (as per the gf's testimony) does that sound like Trayvon ambushed him from behind as he was headed back to the truck?
There is absolutely no reason at all to believe Zimmerman's account of this. it doesn't make sense. Both he and Trayvon would have had to change their minds and turn around from what we know as a fact (per Zimmerman's own phone call) were their previous attitudes. Zimmerman would have had to have broken off the chase and Trayvon would have had to have for some reason turn back from going home (which he was almost there) and go after this stranger who was chasing him.


Explain how an in-shape, high school football player running at full speed away from big bad scary Zimmerman can't make it to an apartment 100 yards away in the course of 2 minutes?

After Zimmerman saw Martin round the corner of the building (feet from where the final incident took place) there were 2+ more minutes of phone conversation before the physical altercation.

For the incident to have taken place at that location, Martin either was in hiding and came out...or he circled back.

Also, using the word "chase" is getting silly. Running to gain position in order to maintain visual contact with someone from a distance is hardly what is implied when the word "chase" is used. There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was attempting to make physical contact with Martin and plenty of evidence that he was merely trying to maintain visual contact with him. You and the others that repeatedly use "chase" are being insincere and inflammatory.

Witnesses and physical evidence back up Zimmerman's version of events. Hell, Zimmerman's case is so good that the prosecutor had to commit perjury just to bring the charges. How does that translate in your mind to "no reason whatsoever to believe anything Zimmerman says?"
2012-06-05 04:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

cirby: Hobodeluxe:
well see now you're putting words into her mouth

Fewer than you did.

That's why I put the (for example) part in. Maybe you missed that. I was pointing out that when you start interpreting what things mean, there are often several ways to interpret the same words.

Of course, I notice that you didn't mention that someone else could have "put words in her mouth" before she made that statement in a phone interview. And that you assumed that the "words" were accurate in the first place, which they almost certainly were not.


bullshiat. I put no words in her mouth. zero zilch none.

stonicus: cirby: Hobodeluxe:
Zimmerman did not get back in his vehicle. He claimed he was headed back to it.

The first encounter - when Zimmerman saw Martin - was at the north end of the neighborhood.

The second encounter - near where Zimmerman's vehicle was found - was at the south end of the neighborhood. By Zimmerman's house.

How did he get his vehicle (and his groceries) to his house if he didn't drive it? Teleportation?

If Martin was avoiding the fight, why was the fatal encounter farther away from his own home, deeper into Zimmerman's neighborhood? When he could have just walked out of the area by taking the shortest route, bu the entrance he came in?

I find it fascinating that Trayvon Martin can outrun a car.


I find it fascinating that trayvon's mom's house was in the next block of buildings from where he was killed and he was on a direct path to there and still this guy thinks he went out of his way to go after Zimmerman, Either he's ignorant or intentionally being misleading. Trayvon had no reason to leave the neighborhood.
2012-06-05 04:07:04 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Devil is in the details,...
"Starting a fight" can mean saying that someone looks like a bucket of shiate (completely protected under law) That person then goes apeshiate and starts throwing fists with intent to kill and they get their ass blown away and suddenly they're a saint and a martyr.

(yes people get killed all the time by hands/fists/kicks/rock off the ground)


I love all the Farkers that are sooooo quick to say anyone who shoots and kills someone who doesn't have a gun is automatically an insane murderer. I'd be safe saying 90% or more of the people on here have never been in a life threatening situation like that so they speak from complete naiveté and/or ignorance. While I kinda want to smack them, I also hope they get to go to their graves with that viewpoint in tact.

Getting assulted by one person who has no value for their life or yours is an eye opener. Knowing that they have no fear of any legal reprecussion that would come with killing in the wrong you makes you rearrange your priorities pretty quick.
2012-06-05 04:01:57 PM  
1 votes:
Hobodeluxe:
Zimmerman did not get back in his vehicle. He claimed he was headed back to it.

The first encounter - when Zimmerman saw Martin - was at the north end of the neighborhood.

The second encounter - near where Zimmerman's vehicle was found - was at the south end of the neighborhood. By Zimmerman's house.

How did he get his vehicle (and his groceries) to his house if he didn't drive it? Teleportation?

If Martin was avoiding the fight, why was the fatal encounter farther away from his own home, deeper into Zimmerman's neighborhood? When he could have just walked out of the area by taking the shortest route, bu the entrance he came in?
2012-06-05 03:59:35 PM  
1 votes:

Phins: Regardless of these "stand your ground" laws, I'm a *(#*$*(&ing sick and tired of these punks and idiots with guns roaming the streets. A friend of my husband's was recently killed by stray gunfire, driving his car when he was shot in the head. His parents and young children watched him die. Happened in Seattle, don't think they have any SYG laws, but it doesn't matter. They'll never catch the guy, never prove it was him. Meanwhile a bunch of mouth-breathing NRA members will defend the rights of ghetto punks to own handguns.

Not trying to thread jack, I'm just tired of shootings. The 2nd amendment says "a well-regulated militia." Our militia, aka military, is well armed. That doesn't mean every idiot with some spare cash should have a gun. Freeper types seem to think they need to be armed because one day they're going to have to rise up and overthrow the government, because socialism. Yeah, right, you bunch of basement dwellers are going to fight in the streets and take over the government to protect truth justice and the American way.


Few things:

1) The gangbangers with guns most likely didn't obtain them legally.
2) With our extremely porous border, a gun ban will accomplish nothing
3) Crime in Australia generally went up after their gun ban/buyback went in to place(particularly assaults). There is no reason to believe this won't happen here as well(burglary and murder didn't seem to move one way or the other). The patience of people here is much less, so you won't get a few years to wait for the worst part to wear off. Keep in mind that this is similar to England, who also has strict gun bans, way higher assault and rape rates, but generally lower extremely violent crime rates. Both of those countries benefit from isolation to some degree and there was definitely plenty of violence from the IRA in the UK despite gun bans.
2012-06-05 03:58:07 PM  
1 votes:
Magorn:
Zimmerman's own words to the 911 dispatcher "He's running"
ergo
Zimmerman had to "chase" Martin to have an encounter with him


No. all it means was that Martin ran. No more, no less.

Once again: the final fight happened next to Zimmerman's home. At the opposite end of the neighborhood. Away from any rational path by Martin to leave the neighborhood.

"Ergo" Martin had to "chase" Zimmerman to attack him.
2012-06-05 03:54:32 PM  
1 votes:

Phins: Regardless of these "stand your ground" laws, I'm a *(#*$*(&ing sick and tired of these punks and idiots with guns roaming the streets. A friend of my husband's was recently killed by stray gunfire, driving his car when he was shot in the head. His parents and young children watched him die. Happened in Seattle, don't think they have any SYG laws, but it doesn't matter. They'll never catch the guy, never prove it was him. Meanwhile a bunch of mouth-breathing NRA members will defend the rights of ghetto punks to own handguns.


I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate that the individual who shot your husband's friend was, prior to the shooting, in legal possession of the firearm. Please do so.
2012-06-05 03:46:09 PM  
1 votes:
Regardless of these "stand your ground" laws, I'm a *(#*$*(&ing sick and tired of these punks and idiots with guns roaming the streets. A friend of my husband's was recently killed by stray gunfire, driving his car when he was shot in the head. His parents and young children watched him die. Happened in Seattle, don't think they have any SYG laws, but it doesn't matter. They'll never catch the guy, never prove it was him. Meanwhile a bunch of mouth-breathing NRA members will defend the rights of ghetto punks to own handguns.

Not trying to thread jack, I'm just tired of shootings. The 2nd amendment says "a well-regulated militia." Our militia, aka military, is well armed. That doesn't mean every idiot with some spare cash should have a gun. Freeper types seem to think they need to be armed because one day they're going to have to rise up and overthrow the government, because socialism. Yeah, right, you bunch of basement dwellers are going to fight in the streets and take over the government to protect truth justice and the American way.
2012-06-05 03:42:55 PM  
1 votes:
Here's my FARKtm Law GED input on this:

The charges against Zimmerman are 2nd degree murder. In order to convict a defendant in Florida of that crime, the prosecution must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The victim is dead;
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Items 2 and 3 above are going to be tough for the prosecution.

The Florida statue (776.012) says that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

1. Per the medical examiner, Trayvon Martin had two injuries : the fatal gunshot wound to the chest and broken skin on his knuckles.
2. Zimmerman's injuries (as described the day after the shooting) were: a pair of black eyes, a fractured nose and two cuts to the back of his head

Even my stellar law credentials would suggest that this is a defensible case based on those facts. "My client, who had a reason to be where he was (neighborhood watch) approached
the Mr. Martin. He merely asked Mr. Martin who he was and where he was going and Mr. Martin attacked him. The injuries to my client indicate that he was on his back and being hit by the Mr. Martin. The injuries to Mr. Martin indicate that he was hitting my client with his fists when he was shot in the chest. My client feared for his life as he was being savagely beaten, so he drew his weapon and fired a single shot.

What I'm concerned about now is what happens when/if Zimmerman is acquitted. Are we going to see the same level of civil disorder as when the first Rodney King (can't we all just get along) ended in acquittals?
2012-06-05 03:40:19 PM  
1 votes:

stonicus: But what about people like Zimmerman? Despite the fact he was driving around looking for trouble, had a gun, got out of his car against police advice, followed someone walking down the road... he still has no concept how this could be threatening to someone else. In his mind, the fact the kid didn't just get on the ground and wait for cops to show up to clear his name made him feel righteous in his actions. Self-righteousness + a gun = nothing but trouble and danger for everyone.

It's not that hard? If just walking home from the store makes someone feel threatened enough to start following you and call the cops on you, then yeah, it really is that hard.


I don't accept the proposition that Martin actually felt threatened. The evidence shows that he was annoyed, or may have been disoriented (the autopsy showed severe global cerebral edema, which was caused by something).

Even if you believe (based on your projection, biases, or assumptions) that Martin actually felt threatened, then it is clear from the evidence that the belief was not reasonable. Being followed, observed at that distance, reported to the police and asked "What are you doing here?" is not grounds for using force in self-defense.

Maybe there's another law in a world where snitches get stitches, but here in civilization, force may only be used when there's a reasonable belief in an imminent threat of serious injury or death.

As for the rest of your comments, Zimmerman had the perfect right to observe and report anyone he wanted to, and ask Martin about his activities and intentions. Martin was under no obligation to answer, of course. "Looking for trouble" has no legal meaning.

You do not know that Zimmerman would only have settled for Martin getting on the ground and waiting for the police. That's pure conjecture on your part, a self-serving fantasy you've invented to justify your conclusion that Zimmerman must have done something wrong.
2012-06-05 03:32:30 PM  
1 votes:

Raoul Eaton: Silly Jesus: 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?

It's always reassuring when someone says "Race Card," because that phrase magically means racism doesn't exist.


So you actually think that this law was written for the sole purpose of providing a future defense in the very statistically rare circumstance where a white guy shoots and kills a black guy under dubious circumstances?

encrypted-tbn1.google.com
2012-06-05 03:22:54 PM  
1 votes:

Persnickety: And there's the problem of: If both parties feel threatened, can both legally be said to be standing their ground?


Sure. It's called mutual mistake. Both parties could mistakenly, but reasonably, believe they were under an imminent threat.

The duty to retreat is, and always was, bullshiat. Good riddance.

Adopting SYG rules means that people ought to be careful not to threaten people, and to not even give people a reason to believe that you are threatening them. It's really not that hard. People need to be responsible for the outcome of their own lives.
2012-06-05 03:18:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:37:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:36:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:30:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:20:21 PM  
1 votes:
> 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.
2012-06-05 02:15:58 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Because everyone taking the law into their own hands and acting like vigilantes is totally compatible with civilization and could not possibly have any unintended consequences.
2012-06-05 02:15:30 PM  
1 votes:

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


Not only that, it encourages gun owners to make sure they kill the other party so their story can't be questioned.

And there's the problem of: If both parties feel threatened, can both legally be said to be standing their ground?
2012-06-05 02:14:28 PM  
1 votes:

ChipNASA: [j.wigflip.com image 376x662]


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN RULES!!!
content8.flixster.com
2012-06-05 02:12:16 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-06-05 02:10:04 PM  
1 votes:
thank goodness!!! we were overdue for a trayvon thread...
2012-06-05 02:09:49 PM  
1 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-06-05 02:07:40 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-06-05 02:07:07 PM  
1 votes:
This is like the old joke about the Alabama state police finding a young black man with a dozen bullet holes in his chest.

/Worst case of suicide they ever saw
2012-06-05 01:46:32 PM  
1 votes:

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


i.ytimg.com
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report