- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I was only aware of it cause of the news. But they had it.
I dont think anyone here noticed.
It takes away a person's duty to retreat. That's all it does. Being found Not Guilty under the stand-your-ground doctrine means you are immune from civil suit.
Because "provoke or "incite" is subjective.Very true, but the Florida version of SYG lacks a direct statement that one cannot provoke or incite the victim. The Texas version has this directly written into it. In short, the problem with Florida's law may not be the concept, but the way it is written.
It will be interesting to see if the Popcorn guy claims SYG ( I imagine that he will). Under the Texas law, the jury would be allowed to consider if his request (s) / order(s) constituted a "provocation" to the victim.
There are of course, two very different spins on what the shooter said, and how many times he said it.
Because "provoke or "incite" is subjective.
Very true, but the Florida version of SYG lacks a direct statement that one cannot provoke or incite the victim. The Texas version has this directly written into it. In short, the problem with Florida's law may not be the concept, but the way it is written.
It will be interesting to see if the Popcorn guy claims SYG ( I imagine that he will). Under the Texas law, the jury would be allowed to consider if his request (s) / order(s) to stop texting constituted a "provocation" to the victim. This concept in Texas could derail his SYG claim before the reasonable person analysis.
There are of course, two very different spins on what the shooter said, how many times he said it, and what tone of voice he was using.
Meh. "Hundreds" of people "marched"...and there was a free barbeque afterward. For Trayvon.
Next...
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Better to die a victim then kill a criminal!Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Sorry. What Popcorn guy??
This one: Police: Texting argument in movie theater sparks fatal shooting - CNN.com
The judge rejected his request for a pre tial application of the SYG law. Apparently, he can still argue it at the trial though.
This shooting, and numerous other "he said, she said" type shootings illustrate why the directly stated Texas provisions is so important.
Whereas Florida's law appears to by ambigous, Texas law clearly states you cant provoke confrontations while knowing you can fall back on a weapon.
Good Lord. Thank you. I hadn't heard about it. Over texting. Unbelievable. And the guy tries to get it dismissed on SYG?? Thank heaven it was dismissed.
Here is another SYG application that might have worked in Florida: Raul Rodriguez, Texas man, gets 40 years in prison for fatally shooting neighbor after claiming 'stand your ground' defense - CBS News
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Hate to say it but people have this perception based an a disinformation campaign fueled mainly by race merchants like Sharpton.
Here is another SYG application that might have worked in Florida: Raul Rodriguez, Texas man, gets 40 years in prison for fatally shooting neighbor after claiming 'stand your ground' defense - CBS News
Honestly, I dont like SYG laws as they reject Common Law Doctrine that one must make at least a token retreat in public. Though some might describe this as "fleeing crime", Common Law realized that there are an awful lot of "He said, she said Jerry Springer shooting incidents". Thus the provision to make a token, retreat.
Such a retreat could be a simple "no" for a woman being grabbed. But... if I chose to get into a drunken discussion in a bar about what team does or does not "suck", I have more of an obligation to retreat before using force. Not with SYG though...
I am not a big Al Sharpton fan, and I realize that had yet another twenty something year old black male killed a 17 year old black male in similar circumstances, Al would have been silent.
I can also see why the Zimmerman shooting could be inflammatory to blacks.
Consider the totality:
-black teenager walking home is deemed to be "suspiscious" because somebody does not like the way he looks
-Follower ignores police advice to leave black teenager alone
black teenager tries to break contact, gets followed- again
Black teenager gets killed. As he is dead, the shooter's word alone must be used to establish what led to the confrontation
-Shooter walks
Of course, this does not make Zimmerman guilty of Murder 2, nor does it make me an Al Sharpton fan, but I can aknowledge why some blacks would get upset.
Same could be said of Zimmerman given his pattern of "bad luck" and "misunderstandings" with women, bosses, the police etc.He couldn't cover like 100 yards in like 7 minutes? I don't think he tried real hard...or he turned back. Given the poor kid's track record of idiotic "thuggish" decisions...I would go with him making a dumb decision.
Maybe, maybe not. What is known is that Zimmerman claimed that he was returning to his car when "X" happened. Zimmerman's claim was accepted with out alot of challenge because Martin was dead and could not give his side of the story as to what Z-man may, or may not have done.He did make the cut back if I am not mistaken.
I am not a big Al Sharpton fan, and I realize that had yet another twenty something year old black male killed a 17 year old black male in similar circumstances, Al would have been silent.
I can also see why the Zimmerman shooting could be inflammatory to blacks. Consider the totality:
-black teenager walking home is deemed to be "suspiscious" because somebody does not like the way he looks
-Follower ignores police advice to leave black teenager alone
-black teenager tries to break contact, gets followed- again
-black teenager attacks follower repeatidly bashing his head into the concrete
-Black teenager gets killed. As he is dead, the shooter's word alone must be used to establish what led to the confrontation
-Shooter walks
Of course, this does not make Zimmerman guilty of Murder 2, nor does it make me an Al Sharpton fan, but I can aknowledge why some blacks would get upset.
I added a step (in red) you seemed to have left out in your chronological account of the Zimmerman/Martin incident. 1. The shear fact that you left that part out shows how the disinformation aspect of this issue has taken root. Of course blacks would get upset considering the repeated and utter fallacy of the "Trayvon was killed for buying skittles and and drink" or "Trayvon was killed for wearing a hoodie" or "Trayvon was killed because he was black." All these leave out a pretty important aspect of that the kid attacked and wound up dead (mind you, thats based on Zimmerman's account as well as the physical evidence on scene) which is unfortunately all we have. 2. We'll never truly know how this was all initiated. I have little trust for Zimmerman and frankly think he's one of teh biggest D-bags the public has seen in a quite some time.
You are over emphasizing the disinformation campaign's imapct on me. I can accept the fact that Zimmerman was attacked, but I also place alot of weight on the second bold point. This is especially true because I, like you, dont trust Zimmerman's word.
As there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman, I would have found him innocent of Murder 2. I wish Florida law allowed a stronger Criminally Negligent homicide provision (if one wants to carry a weapon for self defense, then dont repeatedly follow / chase people simply because you dont think they "belong")
In short, we have pretty similar views on this. This was probably an idiot alpha male shooting another idiot alpha male. Martins punishment for attacking somebody is that he is dead. If it were up to me, Zimmerman would be convicted of negligent homicide for recklessly risking an avoidable confrontation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?