Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

[notdrunk]

I meant Nidal Hasan and James Holmes..oops

[trish]

You are ignoring the fact that Zimmerman couldn't retreat.

Whether Zimmerman could have or could not have retreated after the first punch was thrown is something we have to judge using only Zimmerman’s testimony. No one else was there to see the first punch except Martin, and he is dead. But the veracity of the claim (that he couldn't retreat) is irrelevant to the three points I enumerated in my most recent post. For your convenience I’ll post them again.

1) The instructions to the jury ( http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 ) composed by the Judge and the two attorneys instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida’s SYG law in their deliberations. (Which of the attorney’s do you think thought it was sufficiently relevant to make the jury aware of that law?)

2) There is a obvious mechanism for how SYG laws may embolden carriers of concealed firearms to engage and push encounters to the threshold of violence. It’s part of a more general self-evident principle: More people will engage in an activity hazardous to themselves and others, if the law makes them feel safe from prosecution. Couple that with the another self-evident general principle: The more people who engage in an activity thats hazardous to themselves and others, the more people will be harmed by that activity. If you feel you absolutely need the SYG-law to feel safe enough to stand-your-ground instead attempting to attenuate a conflict, back away or avoid it altogether, then you are emboldened to stand-your-ground by the SYG-law. That’s the meaning of “embolden.” Now think how much more emboldened are wannabe vigilante heros. Particularize to Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not a bad guy. He wants badly to do good heroic things. It just that good and heroic things don’t always involve forceful confrontation. Here’s the way it done http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...oting/2680407/

3) Also a mechanism was suggested to demonstrate how SYG-laws may truncate jury deliberations. This is a general mechanism and may be particularized (but only hypothetically to date) to the Zimmerman case.

Each of these common-knowledge, common-sense, self-evident items demonstrate a connection between SYG and the Zimmerman case in particular, and with gun related deaths in general. Whether Zimmerman could have or could not have retreated is irrelevant to each of these items.

I agree, if you take Zimmerman’s testimony as fact SYG doesn’t directly apply to the facts of the case. But Zimmerman’s lawyer (I’m assuming) was happy to have SYG mentioned in the instructions to the jury because he knew the jury wasn’t obligated to take Zimmerman’s testimony as fact. If a jury member questioned the veracity of the testimony, then the jury would have to discuss whether or not Zimmerman was legitimately standing his ground; i.e. application of SYG would’ve become the focus of the deliberation. We don’t know (at this date) whether such a discussion took place among the jury members or within the mind of a single juror. This is what is called “relevance.”

For another take on the relevance of SYG and the Zimmercase see
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...merman/277829/

Nice anecdotal evidence.

The Antoninette Tuff story ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...oting/2680407/ ) is not presented (in my post) as evidence but as an ideal. And no, we don’t know if Adam Lanza, if caught at the right moment might have been talked down. The idea (imo) is certainly less ludicrous than arming all the teachers.

My point is that don't politicize a murder that doesn't your agenda. It is frankly..wrong.

The jury found Zimmerman not guilty. But the larger point is that Zimmerman's bravado found psychological support in the SYG laws and the concealed weapon on his person. His is one of many cases that demonstrate the negative effect of SYG laws.

Once again I’ll post desirejone’s links and ask you to sign the petition.
http://csgv.org/action/stand-up-to-stand-your-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...f=black-voices



If you agree that Stand-Your-Ground laws do more to aggravate our nation’s gun problem than help, then go to the links above and add your name to petitions. If you don’t agree, don’t sign.

[yodajazz]

1.) The moment that Zimmerman was in danger (i.e., when Trayvon punched him and repeatedly punched him), he couldn't retreat...

My point is that don't politicize a murder that doesn't your agenda. It is frankly..wrong.

The case was politicized the moment GZ identified TM as a criminal for 'walking to slowly' in the rain. It politicized when GZ decided that Black people dont have the right to look at things, or that a Black youth looking around is a sign of criminal activity. Now people are trying to say, Skittles candy is a drug activity. For some reason, this affects me deeply, having lived beyond 60 years, always thinking of candy as candy, and knowing that children typically love candy. But now Black children carrying candy is a suspicious activity.

As far as 'stand your ground', I wonder why so few people think of TM as standing his ground?

[notdrunk]

The case was politicized the moment GZ identified TM as a criminal for 'walking to slowly' in the rain. It politicized when GZ decided that Black people dont have the right to look at things, or that a Black youth looking around is a sign of criminal activity. Now people are trying to say, Skittles candy is a drug activity. For some reason, this affects me deeply, having lived beyond 60 years, always thinking of candy as candy, and knowing that children typically love candy. But now Black children carrying candy is a suspicious activity.

As far as 'stand your ground', I wonder why so few people think of TM as standing his ground?

Good luck proving that he profiled Trayvon because he is Black. Zimmerman didn't report the race of Trayvon until the operator asked for it. Furthermore, and unfortunately, there is/was a crime in Zimmerman's neighborhood. Apparently, weeks before the shooting, Zimmerman called the police because there was an odd acting teen looking through windows. The teen got away from the police that day. It turns out the teen was breaking into homes stealing property. The teen was later arrested carrying stolen property. During the 911 call made by Zimmerman, I got the feeling the comment that he made about "these assholes, they always get away" was in relation to that previous incident. Zimmerman decided to follow somebody that he believed was another teen engaged in a possible criminal act. The rest is history.

Because "stand your ground" is about self-defense. Throwing the first punch and beating somebody that is down isn't self-defense.

[notdrunk]

Whether Zimmerman could have or could not have retreated after the first punch was thrown is something we have to judge using only Zimmerman’s testimony. No one else was there to see the first punch except Martin, and he is dead. But the veracity of the claim (that he couldn't retreat) is irrelevant to the three points I enumerated in my most recent post. For your convenience I’ll post them again.

If you want to argue if Zimmerman was the aggressor, lets look at Florida's law on this matter:

Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat.)

Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

If Zimmerman was pinned and he was screaming for help (most of the jurors agree it was Zimmerman screaming), while being bloodied by punches, he has stopped becoming the aggressor. Trayvon as become the aggressor.

[trish]

If you want to argue if Zimmerman was the aggressor, ...

No, I'm not making that argument at all. The quote of mine that you cited does not make that argument. Your refutation is for naught. I'm willing to accept the decision of the jury. However the three common-knowledge, comment-sense points I reposted above for your convenience retain their validity regardless of who was the aggressor. That is indeed the point made by the very snippet you saw fit to quote.

Originally Posted by trish
Whether Zimmerman could have or could not have retreated after the first punch was thrown is something we have to judge using only Zimmerman’s testimony. No one else was there to see the first punch except Martin, and he is dead. But the veracity of the claim (that he couldn't retreat) is irrelevant to the three points I enumerated in my most recent post. For your convenience I’ll post them again.

[broncofan]

Because "stand your ground" is about self-defense. Throwing the first punch and beating somebody that is down isn't self-defense.

You can have self-defense without stand your ground laws. Stand your ground is about not taking every possible action to avoid conflict before defending one's self. It is counter-intuitive and has its roots in the pseudo-machismo of the wild west.

The essence of self-defense is necessity. It is not necessary to use deadly force unless you've taken every possible avenue to avoid it. One of them may be running because you don't want to kill someone, even someone who is breaking the law.

[broncofan]

Whether Zimmerman could have or could not have retreated after the first punch was thrown is something we have to judge using only Zimmerman’s testimony. No one else was there to see the first punch except Martin, and he is dead. But the veracity of the claim (that he couldn't retreat) is irrelevant to the three points I enumerated in my most recent post. For your convenience I’ll post them again.

This is one of the reasons I didn't say much about these laws at the time. It may not have helped in this case because, A) Zimmerman may have been guilty even under stand your ground for escalating, and B) having a duty to retreat would not prevent Zimmerman from making the excuse that he could not retreat. The problem was a lack of solid testimonial evidence. It was a particular problem because the victim was not alive to give his interpretation of events and I don't think anyone had a full picture of what happened or could re-construct it for us.

But stand your ground laws are wrong because they cut at the very basis of self-defense. They are wrong for reasons of public policy, they are wrong morally if one believes that one should avoid violence in every manner possible, and they are wrong because they send the message that people have a cognizable right to fight any "belligerent" no matter what the cost.

As you point out so clear-headedly, the problem with stand your ground is the same problem we have with our gun laws. When one carries a hammer they look for a nail. The message is that justified violence is something to be sought out, and seekers of violence always look for a pretext.

There is also a good reason why stand your ground laws and loose gun laws are dangerous for minorities. People who seek out excuses for violence are really looking for a class of people to blame for every social ill. These laws both reflect and reinforce this mentality.

Edit: I'm not saying that people with this mentality are invariably racist. But when you're looking for classes of people to blame for complex social problems, race tends to be a popular category.

[broncofan]

If a jury member questioned the veracity of the testimony, then the jury would have to discuss whether or not Zimmerman was legitimately standing his ground; i.e. application of SYG would’ve become the focus of the deliberation. We don’t know (at this date) whether such a discussion took place among the jury members or within the mind of a single juror. This is what is called “relevance.”

Great point. If there's one thing I've noticed from watching these cases is that defense attorneys love two mutually exclusive reasons their clients aren't guilty. What they want is doubt, not certainty as to what happened because of their defensive posture. So the defense would of course say, "first of all George couldn't have retreated, and second of all he didn't have a duty to retreat even if he could have".

In this way stand your ground acts as a red herring for an already confused jury trying to re-construct what happened. They are told he has a right to stand and fight, and so through the power of suggestion they fit the facts to that scenario. It might be interpreted by an unsophisticated jury as a right to act with impunity, which in its strictest terms it is not. Either way, it is hardly a right any citizen should have.

[notdrunk]

No, I'm not making that argument at all. The quote of mine that you cited does not make that argument. Your refutation is for naught. I'm willing to accept the decision of the jury. However the three common-knowledge, comment-sense points I reposted above for your convenience retain their validity regardless of who was the aggressor. That is indeed the point made by the very snippet you saw fit to quote.

I will explain it clearer:

1.) Yes, you are correct that there is SYG language in Florida's self-defense law. The judge is required to include the language because it is in Florida's self-defense law. The main aspect of SYG language in Florida's self-defense is the removal of the duty of retreat when not in your place of dwelling. The language is an expansion of the castle doctrine. You can't randomly shoot somebody under self-defense laws that contain SYG language. The anti-SYG are specifically using the Trayvon Martin case to advance their cause; however, the duty of retreat is moot in that case. It was my original thought on the video.

The jury had to be aware of the law because it is in the law.

2.) The purpose of SYG laws isn't about pushing a situation to commit a legal murder. SYG laws have specific language when somebody can use deadly force outside of their home. The law doesn't turn you into the Punisher. Anecdotal stories doesn't escape the fact that a lot of time "talking" doesn't stop somebody from doing something bad.

3.) Jury-deliberations? It puts the burden back on the prosecutor to prove an illegal murder has happened. Presumption of innocence?