Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground" [Archive] - HungAngels

desireejones

08-20-2013, 06:46 AM

Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

The traditional presumption in the law—from the advent of the Hebrew Bible through the creation of Roman law, English common law, and American law—has been that if you could spare human life, it was incumbent upon you to do so.

With “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.

The NRA’s laws represent a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.). The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated. Additionally, “Stand Your Ground” laws remove the duty to retreat from a conflict in public, allowing individuals to shoot and kill even when they could otherwise walk away safely from an altercation.

Please sign this petition calling on your state legislators to oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws.

http://csgv.org/action/stand-up-to-stand-your-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/trayvon-martin-ad_n_3780041.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices

"Stand Up to 'Stand Your Ground'" PSA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU)

notdrunk

08-20-2013, 02:49 PM

People are showing their ignorance of laws by citing the Trayvon Martin case for repealing Stand Your Ground laws. The Trayvon Martin case has nothing to do with those laws.

trish

08-20-2013, 03:08 PM

notdrunk

08-20-2013, 04:58 PM

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467

The above is a transcript of the Judge's instructions to the jury in the Zimmerman case. Note on page ten the Judge aprises the jury of Forida's stand your ground law and how it applies to their deliberations.

How can you retreat if somebody is on top of punching you? The case is a poor example to support repealing SYG laws (i.e., no duty to retreat). Even though Zimmerman might of been following Martin, Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal by possibly following Martin. And, the action of following doesn't give the right of Martin to attack Zimmerman unless Zimmerman initiates the violence first.

trish

08-20-2013, 06:50 PM

You said,
The Trayvon Martin case has nothing to do with those laws. The Judge, however, thought it was sufficiently relevant to mention in his instructions to the jury. I see you're retreating already. Now your claim is,
The case is a poor example to support repealing SYG laws . :D

notdrunk

08-21-2013, 06:24 AM

You said, The Judge, however, thought it was sufficiently relevant to mention in his instructions to the jury. I see you're retreating already. Now your claim is, . :D

Nope, I am not retreating. Even if the duty of retreat wasn't replaced in Florida, Zimmerman would still be found not guilty under the old law. The case has nothing to do with the duty of retreating or not. You can't retreat if somebody throws a knockdown punch and jumps on top of you to continue violence against you.

trish

08-21-2013, 07:11 AM

Nope, I am not retreating.Ah, but you already have. :D You no longer make the extreme claim that the Zimmerman case has "nothing to do" with SYG laws.

You can't retreat if somebody throws a knockdown punch and jumps on top of you to continue violence against you. Nope, but Zimmerman could've retreated well in advance of that alleged circumstance. Had he retreated when the police operator asked him to, or had he retreated before it came to blows, Zimmerman wouldn't have suffered an owie and no one would have died. Self-defense in one thing. It's a right. Standing your ground just to see how far you can escalate a situation before it becomes violent is sheer inanity. Stand your ground is not a right, it's just a stupid piece of ALEC-designed boiler plate crap wrapped up in the parchment of Florida law.

notdrunk

08-21-2013, 04:02 PM

Ah, but you already have. :D You no longer make the extreme claim that the Zimmerman case has "nothing to do" with SYG laws.
Nope, but Zimmerman could've retreated well in advance of that alleged circumstance. Had he retreated when the police operator asked him to, or had he retreated before it came to blows, Zimmerman wouldn't have suffered an owie and no one would have died. Self-defense in one thing. It's a right. Standing your ground just to see how far you can escalate a situation before it becomes violent is sheer inanity. Stand your ground is not a right, it's just a stupid piece of ALEC-designed boiler plate crap wrapped up in the parchment of Florida law.

I am sticking to my original claim. Those people want to repeal the law and replace it with the old law. They are citing the Trayvon Martin case as support to repeal the law. SYG and other self defense laws don't begin until violence or a forcible felony has began. Martin initiated the violence by punching Zimmerman. Martin didn't give the opportunity for Zimmerman to retreat by striking him and getting on top of him to continue an assault. Martin became the aggressor by his own actions. It might be messed up but it happened.

trish

08-21-2013, 04:25 PM

I am sticking to my original claim.You mean you're flip-flopping. Okay, then why did the Judge instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida's SYG law? (See page 10 of the Judge's instructions to the jury, http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 (http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467)). The fact alone that the Judge instructed the jury on SYG makes it relevant to the case; it was considered by the jury in their deliberations.

Those people want to repeal the law and replace it with the old law. They are citing the Trayvon Martin case...Along with many other cases and armed with many good arguments not dependent on specific cases.

SYG ...laws don't require that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible. That's one reason to get rid of them. (SYG is NOT a self-defense law. It's be a right-to-be-an-asshole law).

bluesoul

08-21-2013, 06:01 PM

Had he retreated when the police operator asked him to, or had he retreated before it came to blows

isn't that what happened? he was following martin, then when he was told he didn't have to, he said "okay" and started going back to his car and supposedly that's when he ran into martin.

bobvela

08-21-2013, 06:29 PM

You mean you're flip-flopping.

And you are missing the underlying point. Despite the claims of the anti-SYG folks, that defense was NOT invoked by the defense before or during the trial.

Had defense counsel wanted to, they could have asked for a pre-trial hearing to address the issue. They didn't. Why? Because Mark O'Mara understood SYG did not apply as there was no ability to retreat.

Okay, then why did the Judge instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida's SYG law? (See page 10 of the Judge's instructions to the jury, http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 (http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467)). The fact alone that the Judge instructed the jury on SYG makes it relevant to the case; it was considered by the jury in their deliberations.

First... jury instructions are not written by the judge alone, every line in it is scrutinized by both defense & state counsel, challenges issued, changes made. Just as the state will over stack charges of massively over charge (as they did here)... so too will defense throw everything they can at the wall.

Second, if you actually read the jury instructions you see it goes through various different verdicts the jury can reach, as well as various possible ways to achieve that. SYG being one such way to determine if it was justifiable use of deadly force.

Along with many other cases and armed with many good arguments not dependent on specific cases.

And yet it is through such cases that we analyze the law to determine if it is doing it's job or not.

require that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible. That's one reason to get rid of them. (SYG is NOT a self-defense law. It's be a right-to-be-an-asshole law).

You accuse someone here of flip-flopping... and yet isn't that just what you did there?

As you said, SYG requires 'that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible'... and being a big enough asshole can lead to such a confrontation (just ask TM).

You like many anti-SYG folks seem to think SYG is a license for say... a white person to walk into a black neighborhood, start shouting racial slurs, waiting for the situation to become heated and some local person to get in face of the screamer who suddenly feels threatened and shoots the local.

Like on so many things, your interpretations here are wrong.

Or do you want to claim that Marissa Alexander was wrongly convicted and should have let off because she too claimed SYG?

bobvela

08-21-2013, 06:33 PM

isn't that what happened? he was following martin, then when he was told he didn't have to, he said "okay" and started going back to his car and supposedly that's when he ran into martin.

The close-minded amongst us refuse to accept the 'Trayvon doubled back' explanation.

Given the locations & distances involved, it's the only explanation that makes sense... unless we are to believe that GZ is such a fantastic runner that he could catch up to TM despite a good lead of time & distance.

Trish is quick to say things to the effect of "If GZ hadn't done X, or had done Y... then TM would be alive today" and yet never will you hear her say "If TM hadn't doubled back AND punched GZ repeatedly, them TM would be alive today."

But then, what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

trish

08-21-2013, 07:16 PM

what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob? Hey, Zimmerman was found innocent of murder. If it's good enough for Florida, it's good enough for me. It's neither his guilt nor his innocence that is under discussion here. The tactic, "Look over there at that lynch-mob?" is called a diversion. What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

And you are missing the underlying point. Despite the claims of the anti-SYG folks, that defense was NOT invoked by the defense before or during the trial.No, I saw that point. But laws can apply whether or not they're invoked by defense attorneys in the main body of the trial. As you say, the Judge's instructions to the jury were written by the judge and the attorneys together. Which attorney do you think included the instructions to consider the SYG laws?

And yet it is through such cases that we analyze the law to determine if it is doing it's job or not.Did I say they weren't?

As you said, SYG requires 'that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible'No, I didn't. Try re-reading that. That's exactly what they don't do.

notdrunk

08-21-2013, 08:09 PM

You mean you're flip-flopping. Okay, then why did the Judge instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida's SYG law? (See page 10 of the Judge's instructions to the jury, http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 (http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467)). The fact alone that the Judge instructed the jury on SYG makes it relevant to the case; it was considered by the jury in their deliberations.

Along with many other cases and armed with many good arguments not dependent on specific cases.

require that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible. That's one reason to get rid of them. (SYG is NOT a self-defense law. It's be a right-to-be-an-asshole law).

It doesn't give somebody a license to kill a random person. The law specifically mentions that you are being attacked by somebody or a forcible felony is happening. The Judge added the SYG law into instructions because Zimmerman didn't have a duty to retreat under Florida law due to SYG. The problem is that Zimmerman couldn't retreat if he wanted to retreat. The action of following isn't an act of violence. Punching somebody then repeatedly punching somebody is an act of violence. Zimmerman didn't claim self-defense under the SYG immunity. He claimed just self-defense from a violent attack.

The group that produced that video are trying to appeal to emotions by using the Martin case. They want to advance their agenda like any other group. My point is that the case wasn't about retreating vs. not retreating because there was no chance for Zimmerman to retreat once the violence began. It is about using deadly force to stop a violent attack on oneself.

trish

08-21-2013, 08:25 PM

The right to defend yourself has always existed within the bodies of State law. SGY-laws are not about the right to defend yourself; rather they legalize deliberate armed confrontation, especially in those cases where life is in danger and there remain open avenues to avoid confrontation! These laws encourage and embolden would be vigilante heros to escalate dangerous encounters to violence. Zimmerman was emboldened that fateful night by both Florida’s stand-your-ground law and the firearm concealed beneath his garment. What could go wrong? He’s armed and the laws are on his side, even if he stalks and provokes the target of his attentions. We saw what went wrong. An innocent young man was needlessly killed.

Imagine if you will the following hypothetical dialog.

Jury member 1: You really believe that little Martin kid surprised Zimmerman (who outweighs him by how much?), delivered a knock down punch, lept on top of him and restrained him?

Jury member 2: Yeah, I do. But look, it doesn’t matter even if Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat, because he has the right in Florida to stand his ground. Either way we have to find him innocent.

Jury member 1 (discouraged from further pursing this line of reasoning since both lead to a finding of not guilty): Oh well.

Of course this is a purely hypothetical dialog. Something like it may or may not have occurred during the Zimmerman deliberations. Something like it may or may not have gone on within the mind of one or more jury members. The point is (whether SGY is invoked by an attoney or not), if the Judge instructs the jury in SGY law, the jury is obligated to consider it. It may be considered and summarily dismissed (as in my example above), or it may be considered more seriously. Either way it is not irrelevant to the deliberations or the direction those deliberations take. In my hypothetical example its invocation discourages a whole line of reasoning and effectively endorses Zimmerman’s account of the evening.

SGY laws embolden brutes, thugs and bullies. And they may truncate appropriate deliberation in the jury room.

hippifried

08-22-2013, 06:03 AM

The close-minded amongst us refuse to accept the 'Trayvon doubled back' explanation.

Given the locations & distances involved, it's the only explanation that makes sense... unless we are to believe that GZ is such a fantastic runner that he could catch up to TM despite a good lead of time & distance.

Trish is quick to say things to the effect of "If GZ hadn't done X, or had done Y... then TM would be alive today" and yet never will you hear her say "If TM hadn't doubled back AND punched GZ repeatedly, them TM would be alive today."

But then, what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

What a crock... Martin didn't double back. He merely stepped aside down one of the entry walks. That's where everything happened. It's a dead end. Zimmerman on his way back? To where? He had to turn to go down the same path.

Got any more lies?

bobvela

08-22-2013, 06:50 AM

Hey, Zimmerman was found innocent of murder.

Liar. He was found not guilty, there is a difference. One is an option for the jury, the other is generally not (despite a request from Mark O'Mara during closing).

If it's good enough for Florida, it's good enough for me.

You say that... yet you and others invoke the TM case as a justification to abolish SYG.

It's neither his guilt nor his innocence that is under discussion here.

Yet you were discussing things related to the case, playing the "If GZ had just obeyed the 911 operator and stayed in his car" card.

The tactic, "Look over there at that lynch-mob?" is called a diversion.

No, it's calling a spade a spade. The lynch mob (of which you are a long standing member) wasn't able to get it's head through the legal system... and now you look for other targets to unleash your rage upon.

What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

You accuse me of diversion... then you say things like that? Are you trying to embarrass or discredit yourself? Oh right...

Worse... you are clearly engaging in some projection... something we often see from the anti-gunners who live in a near constant fear that someone, somewhere might be carrying a gun... all the while claiming the paranoia to be on the side of those who do carry... yet we don't call people who carry live insurance or have a few bottles of water in a closet paranoid.

No, I saw that point. But laws can apply whether or not they're invoked by defense attorneys in the main body of the trial. As you say, the Judge's instructions to the jury were written by the judge and the attorneys together. Which attorney do you think included the instructions to consider the SYG laws?

You claim you saw it, yet you keep having to have things pointed out to you which you refuse to comprehend.

You really need to read up on the concept of 'pattern jury instructions'... where a Judge more or less plays copy & paste with instructions related the charges (and lessor charges (if applicable)). In a case like this where self defense is raised (vs "you have the wrong guy!"), said instructions are also pasted... only then do the arguments begin.

Did I say they weren't?

Not directly, but your comments here keep suggesting otherwise.

No, I didn't. Try re-reading that. That's exactly what they don't do.

I did then, and I re-read it today. Yes it does. Maybe you just aren't used to reading legalese, or legalese simplified for jurors.

Clearly you didn't read (or comprehend) the paragraph in question. Allow me to break it down for you.

While I would call it grammatically sloppy, the first part of the sentence boils down to "If GZ was acting legally" (which all indications say he was), while the next part says "then he has no duty to retreat".

Given your feelings that SYG is a license to be an asshole and kill anyone you want... sure a shame that the home owner in this case was such an asshole... maybe if he wasn't he wouldn't have had the chance to shoot and kill someone in his own home (which is part of SYG): http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/iowa-escaped-inmate-shot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

bobvela

08-22-2013, 07:08 AM

What a crock... Martin didn't double back.

Wait... you were there? You saw what happened? Why weren't you called to testify for the prosecution?!?!?!

Clearly this oversight on their part is another example of the outright incompetence involved!

He merely stepped aside down one of the entry walks.

Again... you seem to have evidence I do not recall being presented at trial... care to cite which witness I missed and what testimony they gave to that effect? Do please avoid citing Rachel Jenteal who ruined much of her credibility on the stand by admitting while on the stand that she had lied repeatedly about the facts of the case.

That's where everything happened. It's a dead end. Zimmerman on his way back? To where? He had to turn to go down the same path.

Um... clearly you have not looked at what the area looks like (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back). The dead-end is where GZ was going. Based on where his body was found, TM had instead turned earlier and then stopped prior to reaching the house where he was staying while GZ would have returned to his car from the dead end... coming near to the place where TM was killed.

Got any more lies?

It's unfortunate that the term 'lie' has gone from meaning "knowingly attempting to deceive" to "saying something that I disagree with".

Granted... I tend to expand the original definition to include apparent willful ignorance of facts... under neither the original nor my broadened definition can anything I have said here be called a lie... or do you have some specific evidence you wish to pose?

... not that it matters much as GZ was found not guilty despite the best attempts of the left in this country to lynch him, it would seem to be that the facts are on my side.

trish

08-22-2013, 07:11 AM

Liar. He was found not guilty, there is a difference. Oh my! Caught dead to rights in a loathsome lie. Whatever shall I do?

You say that... yet you and others invoke the TM case as a justification to abolish SYG. Yes. Of course. Just like there's a subtle distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", there is also a distinction between agreeing "Zimmerman is not guilty" and the claim that the Florida SYG-law embolden Zimmerman and paved the way for the sad outcome of his encounter with Martin. Even though you failed to make the distinction yourself, I'll refrain from calling you a LIAR...just this once.

The lynch mob (of which you are a long standing member) Absolutely not. Zimmerman is not guilty. I don't want to see him lynched. I will, on the other hand, use his case and others like it to illustrate why this nation needs to rid itself of SYG laws. (You do realize you're accusing a black woman of belonging to a lynch mob. I admire your temerity).

You accuse me of diversion... then you say things like that? I was mocking you, idiot. The phrasing copies the very phrasing of your previous post. Sheesh!

we don't call people ... paranoid.Didn't you just call me paranoid? LIAR :D

I did then, and I re-read it today. Yes it does.No. It doesn't. Re-read it again, idiot, with the prior quote and notice the underscore. Sheesh again!!!

bobvela

08-22-2013, 07:24 AM

The right to defend yourself has always existed within the bodies of State law.

In some ways yes, but generally very limitedly. Only recently did Ohio make it legal to defend yourself against illegal police actions, an right which exists in few states.

SGY

Skagway, AK?
Société Généalogique de l'Yonne?
Suomen Geoteknillinen Yhdistys?
Suomen Gynekologiyhdistys?

laws are not about the right to defend yourself;

Liar!

You really like making things up, don't you?

Do you have to try to be this deceitful? ... or does it come naturally?

[QUOTE=trish;1381264]rather they legalize deliberate armed confrontation, especially in those cases where life is in danger and there remain open avenues to avoid confrontation!

Liar!

SYG generally requires the shooter to be in a place they can legally be, and not having instigated the events which lead to the death.

Again, running around a mostly black neighborhood screaming "White Power!" and shooting the first black person to raise an objection will not be allow the shooter to walk.

These laws encourage and embolden would be vigilante heros to escalate dangerous encounters to violence.

Really... I trust you have specific evidence to support that claim? That countless people who have claimed SYG, in the moments or minutes leading up to their usage of lethal force thought to themselves "good thing I live in a stand your ground state! I can do crazy things, kill someone and not have to worry!"

Zimmerman was emboldened that fateful night by both Florida’s stand-your-ground law and the firearm concealed beneath his garment.

Is that any different than the fact you rape Nicaraguan children for fun?

See how easy it is to make things up or make assumptions?

Again, you have ZERO evidence of what you claim and still you make these statements.

As a person who legally carries from time to time... I'm actually more cautious and less emboldened when I am carrying... because I know the potential legal ramifications if I even draw my weapon... regardless of the final outcome.

What could go wrong? He’s armed and the laws are on his side, even if he stalks and provokes the target of his attentions.

"What could go wrong? That Nicaraguan kid was asking for it... and despite a treaty in place, I don't think they'd extradite me." -Trish

We saw what went wrong. An innocent young man was needlessly killed.

Wait... you were there too? Good god! All of these people on HA who just happened to be watching the events that night and somehow were not called to testify!!!! Who would have thunk it.

The rest of your hypothetical post is just that... hypothetical nonsense. You lost in court and now you are trying to win in state houses across the country.

Bad news... you will lose there too, doubly so with the new CDC report (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm) (ordered by Obama in the wake of Newtown) which actually contradicts many of the claims of the anti-gunners out there.

trish

08-22-2013, 08:05 AM

Calm down little dude, before you burst a vessel...or shoot somebody's eye out.

bobvela

08-22-2013, 08:34 AM

Clearly I am touching on a nerve... you've resorted to calling me an 'idiot' twice in a single post... and as is your tradition, not offering anything substantive to support you claims.

Before I properly begin, while looking for something else you'd mentioned in the thread, I happened to re-read this post of yours and noticed something odd which once again demonstrates your lack of credibility due to an apparent outright refusal to learn the facts involved (emphasis mine):

You said, The Judge, however, thought it was sufficiently relevant to mention in his instructions to the jury. I see you're retreating already. Now your claim is, . :D

The judge in the case... is one Judge Debra Nelson, is as far as I can tell... a woman. And while she does bare a striking resemblance to Chris Farley in drag (as seen in a few SNL sketches), probably shouldn't be referred to as 'his'... unless you think you would like to be as well?

Oh my! Caught dead to rights in a loathsome lie. Whatever shall I do?

Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery. (http://www.alcoholic.org/research/aa-step-1/)

Yes. Of course. Just like there's a subtle distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty",

If by 'distinction' you mean 'a rather large gaping distance in the realm of legality'... then yes you are right.

It's the same distinction that exists between being a virgin... and a virgin who is raped in a penetrative manor.

there is also a distinction between agreeing "Zimmerman is not guilty" and the claim that the Florida SYG-law embolden Zimmerman and paved the way for the sad outcome of his encounter with Martin.

Hello apples & oranges!

If you bothered to read the jury instructions (which as I recall you claimed I didn't(notice how I call you out with specific mockeries at the time of said mock?))... justifiable homicide & excusable homicide were on the table... yet not guilty was the verdict. Hrm...

Even though you failed to make the distinction yourself, I'll refrain from calling you a LIAR...just this once.

Again... it's not me making that claim... you are... and yet have still not supported it. Once again you reveal yourself as a consistent withholder of the truth.

Absolutely not. Zimmerman is not guilty. I don't want to see him lynched.

You say that now... and yet previously you wished to use the actions of the legal system in order to convict & punish him. Believe it or not... a lynch mob doesn't just require a group of people to hang someone directly because they think they are guilty... instead it also includes those who push others to act to do the same. You know... just what you and others did in the lead up to the GZ trial?

I will, on the other hand, use his case and others like it to illustrate why this nation needs to rid itself of SYG laws.

So you do admit that you are using this case to further your motives to abolish SYG... something that while read to the jury in the GZ case, was not something he was directly acquitted because of.

(You do realize you're accusing a black woman of belonging to a lynch mob. I admire your temerity).

I always enjoy it when people (often those with the most ingrained biases) assume that trait A is only ascribable to those in group B... and refuse to acknowledge that group C, D E or all the way to Z is capable of A. It's the sort of closed-mindedness I've come to expect from you.

Why not just scream "No true Scotsman <something>!"? It would make defining your logical fallacies much easier.

I was mocking you, idiot. The phrasing copies the very phrasing of your previous post. Sheesh!

Lemme get this straight... you mocked and phrased:

what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

into

What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

?

Given the only commonality is "what else would you expect from"... you just gave me artistic license to say whatever I'd like... which I will refrain from given the poor quality of your mockery.

Didn't you just call me paranoid? LIAR :D

Interesting how you ignore my whole point and focus on a single word... and yet fail to understand how it still clearly applies to you while taking offense at the concept and projecting the label to a separate argument.

No. It doesn't. Re-read it again, idiot, with the prior quote and notice the underscore. Sheesh again!!!

Again we see your reading comprehension issues at work. I'm sorry to hear/see that the public schools in your home town failed you so.

While I am mostly the product of a public education... early on I recognized the issues with it and began to branch out and learn more about many a subject... alas it's clear that you opted not to pursue personal betterment.

bobvela

08-22-2013, 08:48 AM

Calm down little dude,

Little?

before you burst a vessel...

Alas for you, my doctor is always surprised by my actual health, despite risk signs to the contrary. At the rate I am going I'll live to 120 despite a lifetime of smoking, drinking & eating fatty foods.

or shoot somebody's eye out.

Again alas for you... statistically, you are more likely to do that than I.

trish

08-22-2013, 02:09 PM

Clearly I am touching on a nerve... you've resorted to calling me an 'idiot' twice in a single post... sorry, but both times you were illustrating poor reading and comprehension skills.

If by 'distinction' you mean 'a rather large gaping distance in the realm of legality'..No, the intent of my usage isn't restricted to the legal context, as my example clearly illustrates. You can't give real evidence for your position so you call me a liar for saying Zimmerman is innocent rather than not guilty. And now we have to go over that for the third time! Really?

So you do admit that you are using this case to further your motives to abolish SYG... I don't admit it, I volunteer it freely. I take responding to your drizzle as an opportunity to repeat for all sane readers that stand your ground laws (coupled with concealed carry) serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence.

bobvela

08-23-2013, 08:28 AM

sorry, but both times you were illustrating poor reading and comprehension skills.

Tell me, what's it like to be a parrot?

I've noticed that quite a few of your retorts to me tend to be "I'm not a towel, you're a towel!"... attempting to take my words/arguments and somehow turn them against me... but instead of involving a novel deconstruction of what I've said and then trying to turn the tables... you simply repeat what I've said.

No, the intent of my usage isn't restricted to the legal context, as my example clearly illustrates.

I am simply citing the official record... you on the other hand are making 'facts' up.

You can't give real evidence for your position so you call me a liar for saying Zimmerman is innocent rather than not guilty. And now we have to go over that for the third time! Really?

*shaking head*

Cite one specific time I have called you a liar here and provide evidence that I did so in error. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. Do it. Come on. You keep hating the fact I call you that and yet NOT ONCE have you supported your claim with non disprovable/discountable evidence that supports your claim.

I don't admit it, I volunteer it freely.

Once again you acknowledge your membership in the lynch-mob. You failed to take GZ's head in court, now you seek to pursue changes that will (in your mind) prevent further TM/GZ like events... never mind the fact that if successful, you will send far more people to jail who are just defending themselves against illegal and life threatening attacks.

I take responding to your drizzle as an opportunity to repeat for all sane readers that stand your ground laws (coupled with concealed carry) serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence.

When doing some searching for a few old posts... I encountered something interesting... at least of those who vote for the usefulness of a post... my retorts to you did far better than yours of me.

You clearly have a view that you are doing right... and yet so few chime in and say "Trish speaks for me". Odd that eh?

More so... you keep claiming that SYG laws "serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence" and still have provided ZERO evidence to support that claim... but then I would expect that kind of behavior from someone who has admitted to raping Nicaraguan kids.

trish

08-23-2013, 03:17 PM

I’ve notice quite a few of your posts are nothing but long lists of variations on the form “you’re a towel.” This last was another fine example of your ad hominem laden dribble.

Now to some questions raised by this thread. Does the combination of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws embolden wannabe vigilante heros to enter into situations and initiate aggressive encounters? If not, why not? Had Zimmerman not had a gun on his person and the SYG law as backup, would he have stalked Martin to begin with? Would he have even bothered to join the neighborhood watch?

Why do people, who aren’t vigilantes or whose professions don’t require them to be armed, even want to carry concealed firearms? What is it about SYG laws that appeals to its proponents? Is concealed carry and SYG, as envisioned by their proponents, a valid form of private security that should be legal? Does the combo makes them (the proponents) feel safer? Does it embolden ordinary people to sometimes get into trouble they might otherwise have avoided? If not, why not? If it doesn’t embolden persons who are already wannabe vigilante heros, why doesn’t it?

yodajazz

08-24-2013, 03:24 AM

If you look at the behavior of young people, they tend to fight not to kill one another but to inflict pain on an opponent. SYG laws under the guise of freedom, are really population control measures.

bobvela

08-25-2013, 09:58 AM

I’ve notice quite a few of your posts are nothing but long lists of variations on the form “you’re a towel.” This last was another fine example of your ad hominem laden dribble.

Does Polly... errr Trish want a cracker? Again... you are playing the part of a parrot and when called out resort to claims of ad hominem.

How about you address what I've said rather than continue to deflect? Which alas is what you continued to do.

Now to some questions raised by this thread. Does the combination of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws embolden wannabe vigilante heros to enter into situations and initiate aggressive encounters? If not, why not?

Not going to answer your own Q? ... or provide support to that claim?

This thread is about the evil that is SYG laws... why not specifically highlight the harm it causes? (ie not what it *could* do). Shouldn't it be a simple matter to show an increase in excusable/justifiable homicides in states after passage of SYG laws AND that such shooters were embolden by the law?

Had Zimmerman not had a gun on his person and the SYG law as backup, would he have stalked Martin to begin with? Would he have even bothered to join the neighborhood watch?

Good luck proving either, in fact, given the actions of GZ prior to the incident(someone who seems to care about his community and wants to help make it better)... it's doubtful that SYG pushed him to that next level.

Why do people, who aren’t vigilantes or whose professions don’t require them to be armed, even want to carry concealed firearms?

Why do people... wear red shits? Or choose Nike over Reebok? Prefer blonds over brunets? Cary life insurance? Keep an charged flashlight in an easy to get to place?

Because they have the freedom to live as they see fit where their actions do not unduly deny others of their liberties, and in some cases take non-harmful 'just in case' steps.

What is it about SYG laws that appeals to its proponents?

Reducing the legal risks of after the fact second guessing & prosecutorial abuses for one.

In theory yes, it's a lovely idea that someone who feels their life is threatened should attempt to flee before using lethal force. If you are in such a potentially life or death situation, the fewer things you are worrying about the better... and every moment you are saying to yourself "Can I get away? Is that door unlocked? Can I outrun them?" is a moment you are not focusing on the situation and asking the core question of "is this person currently or about to be an imminent threat to my life?"

While SYG is more likely to result in the deaths of the perceived bad guy... 'duty to retreat' laws instead risk the lives & safety of those who are denied the right to defend themselves because of the second guessing involved.

Is concealed carry and SYG, as envisioned by their proponents, a valid form of private security that should be legal?

If I understand your meaning... can you hire an armed body-guard in your state? There would be your answer I think.

Does the combo makes them (the proponents) feel safer?

You keep assuming that the desire is to 'feel safe'... do you 'feel safe' because you have auto insurance? Do you 'feel safe' because you have enough food in your fridge to last you a full week?

The goal is to be prepared up to a point (varies by person) to deal with unlikely but not impossible events.

Most people don't keep a parachute in their high-rise office in case they need to jump out a window to safety... but most do carry some form of health/auto/life insurance beyond what they are legally required to.

Same thing here. People pick the degree and areas they opt to insure.

Does it embolden ordinary people to sometimes get into trouble they might otherwise have avoided? If not, why not? If it doesn’t embolden persons who are already wannabe vigilante heros, why doesn’t it?

I suggest you consult with a few sociologists & criminologists on that as I am unaware of anyone writing a paper or there being stats which demonstrate a fundamental causal relationship between SYG and emboldening 'wannabe vigilante heros'.

Here is a question for you... given you seek the repeal of SYG in 31 states, do you also seek the repeal of the Castle Doctrine? If so... how far back to you want to repeal the right to defend ones self? If not, why?

Remember, SYG is simply an extension of the Castle Doctrine and allows for lawful self-defense for the same reasons as the Castle Doctrine... but extends it beyond the home.

trish

08-25-2013, 06:11 PM

Perhaps it is worthwhile remember the point of this thread. To that end I repost desireejones opening gambit.

Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

The traditional presumption in the law—from the advent of the Hebrew Bible through the creation of Roman law, English common law, and American law—has been that if you could spare human life, it was incumbent upon you to do so.

With “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.

The NRA’s laws represent a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.). The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated. Additionally, “Stand Your Ground” laws remove the duty to retreat from a conflict in public, allowing individuals to shoot and kill even when they could otherwise walk away safely from an altercation.

Please sign this petition calling on your state legislators to oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws.

http://csgv.org/action/stand-up-to-stand-your-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/trayvon-martin-ad_n_3780041.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU

To the objection that the Zimmerman case and SYG have “nothing to do” with each other, several counters have been raised.

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 vigillante 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/nation/2013/08/21/decatur-georgia-michael-brandon-hill-school-shooting/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.

For paraphrasing these common-knowledge, common-sense items (of course they do not originate with me) I’ve been called a liar, a member of a lynch-mob, and a pedophile!!! This of course demonstrates the fierce emotional hold these issues have on some people. The sale of firearms in the U.S. is indeed skyrocketing. But not because people favor SYG and concealed carry laws. The number of households owning guns is down from approximately 50% to 30% over the last few of decades. There are more guns, but they are in the hands of fewer people. Homicides have gone down over that period. But we still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations.

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

notdrunk

08-26-2013, 03:37 PM

Perhaps it is worthwhile remember the point of this thread. To that end I repost desireejones opening gambit.

To the objection that the Zimmerman case and SYG have “nothing to do” with each other, several counters have been raised.

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 vigillante 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/nation/2013/08/21/decatur-georgia-michael-brandon-hill-school-shooting/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.

For paraphrasing these common-knowledge, common-sense items (of course they do not originate with me) I’ve been called a liar, a member of a lynch-mob, and a pedophile!!! This of course demonstrates the fierce emotional hold these issues have on some people. The sale of firearms in the U.S. is indeed skyrocketing. But not because people favor SYG and concealed carry laws. The number of households owning guns is down from approximately 50% to 30% over the last few of decades. There are more guns, but they are in the hands of fewer people. Homicides have gone down over that period. But we still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations.

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

1.) The moment that Zimmerman was in danger (i.e., when Trayvon punched him and repeatedly punched him), he couldn't retreat. The anti-SYG people can't escape the fact that Zimmerman couldn't retreat. So what if the Judge included SYG langauge in the instructions? You are ignoring the fact that Zimmerman couldn't retreat. If Zimmerman's lawyers were really interested about the SYG law, they would of asked for a SYG immunity hearing before the trial case began. Why didn't they ask for an immunity hearing? They had to the right to request a hearing.

2.) Nice anecdotal evidence. I am sure that Adam Lanza, Nidal Hazan, James Hasan, and other shooters could of been talked down. :bs:

Michael Hill target wasn't probably the school and its students. It was a backdrop.

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

notdrunk

08-26-2013, 04:47 PM

I meant Nidal Hasan and James Holmes..oops

trish

08-26-2013, 05:08 PM

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/archive/2013/07/how-stand-your-ground-relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/

Nice anecdotal evidence.The Antoninette Tuff story ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/21/decatur-georgia-michael-brandon-hill-school-shooting/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

"Stand Up to 'Stand Your Ground'" PSA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU)

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

08-27-2013, 10:25 PM

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

08-27-2013, 11:28 PM

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

08-28-2013, 12:05 AM

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

08-28-2013, 12:37 AM

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

08-28-2013, 12:53 AM

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

08-28-2013, 01:36 AM

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

08-28-2013, 02:03 AM

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

08-28-2013, 04:11 AM

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?

notdrunk

08-28-2013, 04:13 AM

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.

How would you react if some random person is repeatedly punching you in the face and you can't defend yourself or run away?

trish

08-28-2013, 04:28 AM

Yes, you are correct that there is SYG language in Florida's self-defense law.And it is also correct that the jury had no obligation to take Zimmerman's testimony as true nor any other witness's testimony. Any question of the veracity of said testimony (as I already indicated) would render SYG more than relevant to but focal to the jury deliberations. If what you indicate is true, SYG is inextricably entangled in Florida's self-defense law and is relevant (if not applicable) to all cases involving self-defense.

But regardless of all this, whether Zimmerman was the aggressor or not is irrelevant to my points 1, 2, 3.

broncofan

08-28-2013, 04:32 AM

How would you react if some random person is repeatedly punching you in the face and you can't defend yourself or run away?
I don't know that he couldn't run away. And second of all, if I could not run away, I would not use a gun until I had no other choice. Zimmerman was getting beaten up, but I don't think he was on the verge of being killed. You can argue that by the time he was put on the verge, it would be too late to pull his gun, but this is an attempt to get around the imminence requirement in self-defense.

You can only defend yourself from an imminent threat. I don't think Zimmerman was in imminent danger of being killed. Until he is, he can only defend against the type of violence he is being threatened with imminently. The fact is that if you don't have to retreat, every fight escalates to a near-fatal encounter. You could say, "I was getting hurt, how do I know he would stop beating me"? But this really leads to pre-emptive defense, a contradiction in terms.

We don't know exactly how things played out, which is why I understand the verdict (lack of evidence). I just find it incredibly unlikely that Zimmerman had no alternative but to kill. I think he was looking to kill.

trish

08-28-2013, 07:40 AM

Still, I must insist, for fear of being misunderstood. I do not and have not argued that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I really don’t give a damn if he was or wasn’t. I’m willing to go one better than the jury and find him innocent. For the sake of brevity, let Q1 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman the aggressor in his confrontation with Martin?” and let Q2 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman in imminant danger of being killed by Martin when he killed Martin?” Let us suppose the factual answer to Q1 is “No,” and the factual answer to Q2 is “Yes.”

Neither of these questions nor their factual answers have any bearing on

assertion 2: SYG laws and concealed carry together serve to encourage the escalation confrontations rather than attenuate them. 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. Thus was Zimmerman emboldened by Florida’s SYG law and the gun he carried, regardless of whether it was necessary for him to later appeal to SYG in a court of law. (Now as an aside, notice that Q1 and Q2 just don’t figure into this argument at all. This is because (in accord with this argument) the effect of SYG and concealed carry on Zimmerman’s attitude and behavior came prior to the tragedy; before the confrontation, before the questions Q1 and Q2 made any sense. Zimmerman too is a victim of this aggregious pair of laws. )

Neither do the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 3: A jury has every obligation to listen and give weight to the testimony given in the courtroom. They are under no obligation to believe testimony. Moreover, it is the jury’s obligation to judge, interpret and draw conclusions from what it observes in the courtroom. If a jury member drew the wrong conclusion from the testimony and thought beyond a reasonable doubt that “No” was the answer to Q2, then suddenly that juror is faced with the question, “Was Zimmerman standing his ground?” In this sense SYG is relevant. You might imagine an unsophicated juror under pressure might be persuaded to give up this line of reasoning on the grounds that either way (self-defense or stand-your-ground) Zimmerman’s innocent and the rest of the jury leaning for self-defense. Again SYG is relevant because it was used to sway the opinion of a juror. SYG was Zimmerman’s safety net, if you will. Certainly it was important to the defense that every juror be familiar with SYG and how it works. It may be the case the SYG is so inextricably entangled with self-defense law that it must be outlined in any jury instructions that aim to instruct them in other portions of self-defense law. If that is the case it only supports the case that SYG was relevant to the Zimmerman case. (Notice the factual answers to questions one and two are irrelevant to this argument. What may have been relevant is what the jury members eventually came to believe and how they got there. )

Finally the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 1: The jury was instructed, among other things, on Florida’s SYG law and that alone makes SYG relevant to the case. Perhaps it was there because it’s so inextricably entangled in self-defense law that it can’t be left out. If that’s the case it is certainly relevant. Perhaps it’s there because the judge or at least one of the attorneys insisted it be there. Either way I can’t help but think the defense attoney was happy to have it there for reasons explained in assertion (3) above. Either way, SYG is relevant to the case. (Notice once again that the factual answers to Q1 and Q2 are irrelevant to the argument. Regardless of the real answers to these two questions, assertion 1 stands. )

These three points are not the only ways in which SYG has relevance to the Zimmerman case. It has had a profoundly negative effect on the way in which the case and others was initially (not) investigated. See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...merman/277829/

yodajazz

08-28-2013, 09:48 AM

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.

To me Zimmerman story is not all that likely. You believe his word that he got out of his car, after following him, he may have ran after TM, but then suddenly at the exact moment he ended his pursuit he was jumped from behind. They did not have any words? Before he ran after him, he said "fucking punks, they always get away". He identified TM as a "fucking punk".
he could have easily thrown the first punch, also knowing he was armed. Dont people have a right to look around as they are walking on a public space, as TM was doing when he was first observed? But then even Oprah Winfrey was refused from looking at something recently.

To see if GZ is credible, is why his history was relevant. Especially since TM's history was relevant. GZ's assault charge should have been. It was probably an example where he thew a punch, or something physical. That Rachel Gentel woman had no major incentive to lie about the day, in contrast to GZ, who could have had over 10 years in jail. I think it was relevent that GZ took classes related to law enforcement. So he had prior knowledge of what to say.

notdrunk

08-28-2013, 11:05 PM

trish

08-28-2013, 11:46 PM

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/did-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-increase-firearm-homicides/

yodajazz

08-29-2013, 01:25 AM

To me Zimmerman story is not all that likely. You believe his word that he got out of his car, after following him, he may have ran after TM, but then suddenly at the exact moment he ended his pursuit he was jumped from behind. They did not have any words? Before he ran after him, he said "fucking punks, they always get away". He identified TM as a "fucking punk".
he could have easily thrown the first punch, also knowing he was armed. Dont people have a right to look around as they are walking on a public space, as TM was doing when he was first observed? But then even Oprah Winfrey was refused from looking at something recently.

To see if GZ is credible, is why his history was relevant. Especially since TM's history was relevant. GZ's assault charge should have been. It was probably an example where he thew a punch, or something physical. That Rachel Gentel woman had no major incentive to lie about the day, in contrast to GZ, who could have had over 10 years in jail. I think it was relevent that GZ took classes related to law enforcement. So he had prior knowledge of what to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmermans-wife-pleads-guilty-perjury-florida-court-151403988.html

Zimmerman's wife plead guilty to perjury yesterday. Her and GZ discussed ways to hide money in order hide money from the court. So we more evidence of deceptive behavior. They knew it was wrong and talked in code. And this is the same person, whom some people every word of his version of the story where he killed a person.

notdrunk

08-29-2013, 04:27 AM

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/did-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-increase-firearm-homicides/

Since the passage of SYG in Florida, the average number of justifiable homicide is 35. Yet, the research fails to look at the murder itself. Was the murder caused by a criminal act? Domestic violence? Argument gone bad? Etc. Etc. Additionally, what about the 90s? The number of murders in Florida was higher than currently now. SYG wasn't around in the 90s. There are too many factors to say SYG has caused an increase in violence.

trish

08-29-2013, 04:39 AM

As I mentioned before in this thread, the number of U.S. households with firearms is down from approximately 50% to around 30% in the last few decades. Yes, gun sales are way up. There are more gun enthusiasts these days. There are more guns in fewer hands. Homicides in the U.S. have gone down in the same period. Why? That’s is of course a complex question. Fewer households own guns for one. The population is aging for another. Thanks to easy and effective contraception today’s teens have been born into families who wanted them and could provide for them. It’s not a success story by any means. We still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations. Florida is no success story either. The factors that push down on the homicide rate (like those mentioned immediately above) are countered by those that tend to push it up (drugs, poverty, the availability of guns, concealed carry and SYG laws). As the article I linked ( http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/...arm-homicides/ ) maintains, statistics can only measure the net effects; the interpretation of cause and effect is up to us. It remains a tautology that If you allow (concealed carry) and encourage (syg) more people to carry concealed weapons, then all else being equal, the result will be more firearm accidents, more gun suicides and more homicides. Even though we cannot hold all else equal, we do see more firearm accidents and we do have more gun suicides, and we do (I repeat) have 19 times the homicide rate of otherwise similar nations.

bobvela

08-29-2013, 07:22 AM

If what you indicate is true, SYG is inextricably entangled in Florida's self-defense law and is relevant (if not applicable) to all cases involving self-defense.

It remains quite interesting how you still refuse to address the points I raised earlier... despite me discussing many of the points you raised.

Doubly so here where you make a statement similar to something I said earlier... if you want to attack SYG, how far back do you want to ratchet back self defense laws?

The next step behind SYG is 'duty to retreat'... should one have to retreat when they are in public? When they are on their own property? When they are within their own property?

Of course... as said previously all of this is moot as GZ had no ability to retreat once he believed his life to be in imminent danger because of the criminal actions of TM.

Though to make this all even more fun to watch... GZ's lawyers will soon be seeking compensation from the State of Florida related to the costs of his defense (excluding attorney fees) as he was acquitted of the charges.

Good to see that the lynch mob not only put this man on trial, but also compelled the State of Florida to pay for both sides of a case they had zero hope of winning.

Queens Guy

08-29-2013, 07:56 AM

trish

08-29-2013, 02:54 PM

Bob asks:
...if you want to attack SYG, how far back do you want to ratchet back self defense laws?

The next step behind SYG is 'duty to retreat'... should one have to retreat when they are in public? When they are on their own property? When they are within their own property?...

Ah yes, slippery slope anxiety. I’m all for standing your ground if it really is your ground; i.e. someone breaks into your house you may be stupid not to remove yourself, but you have a right (given by our Creator?) to defend your home. But the relevant question isn’t what I think. The relevant questions are: “Is the slope really slipper?” and “Which direction does it slope?” Thanks to boiler plate laws written by organizations like ALEC we’ve gone from the caste doctrine to SYG. We’ve gone from right to carry, to the right to carry in secret. Gun enthusiats have the right to semi-automatics weapons. How many want automatic weapons? Let’s see the hands.

It’s labor day weekend here in the good ol’ U.S. and I’ll be travelling to visit family. See you on Tuesday.

Stavros

08-29-2013, 06:50 PM

Bob asks:

Ah yes, slippery slope anxiety. I’m all for standing your ground if it really is your ground; i.e. someone breaks into your house you may be stupid not to remove yourself, but you have a right (given by our Creator?) to defend your home. But the relevant question isn’t what I think. The relevant questions are: “Is the slope really slipper?” and “Which direction does it slope?” Thanks to boiler plate laws written by organizations like ALEC we’ve gone from the caste doctrine to SYG. We’ve gone from right to carry, to the right to carry in secret. Gun enthusiats have the right to semi-automatics weapons. How many want automatic weapons? Let’s see the hands.

It’s labor day weekend here in the good ol’ U.S. and I’ll be travelling to visit family. See you on Tuesday.

I don't know what the deep background to SYG law in Florida is, but the argument that a person always has a right of self-defence is morally and legally flawed. It seems to mean that when a person is being threatened, say, by a thief on the street, or by a burglar in the home, violence -which is what SYG seems to imply- is justified. But the assumption that a violation of personal space must lead to a violent act is not always proven; and proportionality should also be weighed in the balance of judgement.

I was burgled a few years ago, and the person responsible returned the next day to collect items which had not been taken because they were disturbed by noises in another part of the building. I was at home when she tried to gain entry, but had she done so and we had confronted each other, it is only theoretically true that I could, for the sake of argument, have whacked her over the head with a blunt object. In fact, the person concerned was known to the police and had no record of violence, in which case I would not have been justified in causing harm and would have had to make people believe I believed I was under threat from someone who had never acted in that way before. She would have had the legal right to sue me for assault, and I would probably have been found guilty even though it was my home that was burgled. Self-defence is not a legal right to act in a violent manner at any time a person feels threatened, because the threat may not actually exist; most burglars can be talked out of a situation.

As for Zimmerman, as I have said before, along with others, if he had not alighted from his vehicle, the confrontation with Martin would not have unfolded as it did; the assumptions that are made about what actually happened are just assumptions, Zimmerman never took the stand to tell the truth under oath.

Enjoy the Labour Day break, wherever you go; and go gently.