Stand your ground law question... - Page 2

Devushka · 03-22-2012, 11:55 AM

Nothing new that I'm adding...Just agreeing with much of what's been said. A legal analyst on CNN was just talking about the problems that will exist for using the Stand Your Ground law as a defense in this case (that is, if Zimmerman is ever even arrested and charged) -- The thing, as far as any of us can tell, is that Zimmerman wasn't met with deadly force and therefore wasn't justified with using deadly force. Martin wasn't armed with any weapon (gun, knife, rock, stick, anything). Moreover, Martin was outweighed by Zimmerman by approx. 80lbs and was heard screaming for help, so it'd be an unreasonable stretch to say that Martin was somehow physically overpowering Zimmerman and beating him to death.

It's really incredible to me that something that what would seem to be so clear was something that had to be pressed for so hard. I mean if it weren't for public outrage over this, the grand jury very probably wouldn't be convened. (Nothing was going to be presented to a grand jury until society put a collective foot down on this situation.)

Anyway. Still sincerely hoping for justice for Trayvon.

sarah42 · 03-22-2012, 05:54 PM

That's right, Michelle, I just meant that I don't think the law is applicable here because it's ludicrous to claim that Zimmerman was defending himself. Based on all the facts I've read/heard, Zimmerman was the aggressor and had no cause to think he was in mortal danger and respond with deadly force.

My reading of the law means that someone being attacked does not have a duty to retreat, as American common law usually dictates. Under FL's law, they can respond with a reasonable amount of force to protect themselves rather than run away.

Myradella3 · 03-22-2012, 09:10 PM

Can someone give me a logical reason that Trayvon was given a toxicology test but Zimmerman wasn't?

Naturalbeauty81 · 03-23-2012, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myradella3

Another case under litigation in Florida highlights the effect of the law. In September 2010, David James was playing basketball with his 8-year-old daughter on an outdoor court in Valrico. A boy was skateboarding on the court at the same time, and Trevor Dooley, a man who lived in the area, told the boy he shouldn't be skateboarding there. James stood up for the boy, and he and Dooley had a confrontation.
Dooley was carrying a gun and wound up shooting James dead. Dooley asserted that he felt threatened by James, and has asked that the case be dismissed before trial under the "stand your ground" law. (The judge will soon make a ruling.)

What!!!! This law is to vague and citizens in the state are using it all willy-nilly to walk away Scott free when an actual murder case is staring them down in the face. That being said I want statistics on how many times this law has been used successfully and unsuccessfully in a way that demonstrated equality among social-economics, geographic and nationality within the state of Florida.

fridayt · 03-23-2012, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlyarca

Look...if some big black guy ran up on some young white boy and shot him over nothing.....he'd be in jail. Just saying. No one would be trying to hear self defense. In fact, the shooter probably wouldn't even stick around to yell "self defense," after shooting an unarmed person. It would be a wrap for that person, and the shooter would have taken off running and promptly apprehended by police.

It's amazing to me that this guy shot an unarmed person and has the balls to stand there and say it was self defense. Just amazing.

I think that is the main reason why people are upset. Laws seem to be different for people of color.

Sent from my LG-E739 using CurlTalk App

crimsonshedemon · 03-23-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah42

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. If someone is being attacked and threatened, I don't think they should have a duty to retreat--they should be able to defend themselves. The FL law also says the defender must use reasonable force. To me, a reasonable person, that means that you can't respond to a minor threat by pulling out a gun and shooting them. I just don't think the law is relevant at all in this case.

I have the right to defend myself. If you break in to my house, prepare to get shot. But I cant chase someone down and shoot them in the back. In fact, I cant shoot anyone in the back because they are retreating and no longer a threat. This FL law is missing some basic common sense.

sarah42 · 03-24-2012, 09:47 AM

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone in the back when they're retreating. It only permits you to use deadly force if that's necessary to prevent your own death or injury.

Quote:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

I don't think the law is at fault; it's misinterpreting and misapplying the law where the conditions aren't met.

afrosheenqueen · 03-24-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonshedemon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah42

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. If someone is being attacked and threatened, I don't think they should have a duty to retreat--they should be able to defend themselves. The FL law also says the defender must use reasonable force. To me, a reasonable person, that means that you can't respond to a minor threat by pulling out a gun and shooting them. I just don't think the law is relevant at all in this case.

I have the right to defend myself. If you break in to my house, prepare to get shot. But I cant chase someone down and shoot them in the back. In fact, I cant shoot anyone in the back because they are retreating and no longer a threat. This FL law is missing some basic common sense.

I remember something similar happened in Baton Rouge, LA to a Japanese foreign exchange student who had the wrong address for a Halloween party and the murderer got away scott free.

Damn shame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

murrrcat · 03-24-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afrosheenqueen

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonshedemon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah42

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. If someone is being attacked and threatened, I don't think they should have a duty to retreat--they should be able to defend themselves. The FL law also says the defender must use reasonable force. To me, a reasonable person, that means that you can't respond to a minor threat by pulling out a gun and shooting them. I just don't think the law is relevant at all in this case.

I have the right to defend myself. If you break in to my house, prepare to get shot. But I cant chase someone down and shoot them in the back. In fact, I cant shoot anyone in the back because they are retreating and no longer a threat. This FL law is missing some basic common sense.

I remember something similar happened in Baton Rouge, LA to a Japanese foreign exchange student who had the wrong address for a Halloween party and the murderer got away scott free.

Damn shame: Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

omg that story is sooo stupid. He thought he was scary? Why the hell would you go out of your house with a gun if you think someone is "scary"? why not STAY IN YOUR HOUSE, and wait for the police you toolbag. And that's what it is, people are just toolbags. He had no reason to go outside of his house that has locked doors and approach someone who is leaving, with a gun. But he did...because he had a gun, and he thought that gave him the right to be a *******, because he could just shoot the guy. **** people with guns. And **** people without guns. **** everybody. I hate everyone. Goodnight.

murrrcat · 03-24-2012, 06:52 PM

secondly why are all these people with guns aiming at their chests?! why not lower, hell just shoot in the air to scare them away. Da ****..anyway goodnight, before I get mad and shoot someone, for looking suspicious, aka being human.

Devushka · 03-24-2012, 07:09 PM

Also, if Zimmerman says (according to his lawyer) that he got a broken nose and a cut in the back of his head from the confrontation with Trayvon, why didn't the police call for an ambulance? I really don't know much about SOP for police, but that seems like something standard that would be done, doesn't it?

Another thought -- I hope the investigators talk to the clerk at the convenience store Trayvon had just gone to minutes before to ask if he seemed to be on drugs or something. (Yeah, I know he wasn't, but I'm just hoping they gather whatever evidence is out there to show in a court of law that Zimmerman was coming to conclusions that were clearly wrong and then acting on them.)

Mimi2010 · 03-24-2012, 08:00 PM

I for one do not agree with the stand ur ground law. Case in point. If one starts a confrontation/conflict and the one that didn't start it gets the best of the perpetrator and the perpetrator has a gun, shoots and kills can use the stand ur ground law to justify his actions is not right. If u start a conflict and in the end u lose u lose. Done!

Sent from my iPhone using CurlTalk

crimsonshedemon · 03-24-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah42

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone in the back when they're retreating. It only permits you to use deadly force if that's necessary to prevent your own death or injury.

Quote:

776.012&emsp;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&emsp;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

I don't think the law is at fault; it's misinterpreting and misapplying the law where the conditions aren't met.

I wasn't referring to the stand your ground law.
In CA, I can defend myself my family or property but cannot chase someone down. It does not make sense to say you feel threatened when someone is running away. You have the right to defend yourself not to chase the criminal down once he's retreating.

crimsonshedemon · 03-24-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murrrcat

secondly why are all these people with guns aiming at their chests?! why not lower, hell just shoot in the air to scare them away. Da ****..anyway goodnight, before I get mad and shoot someone, for looking suspicious, aka being human.

Please don't shoot in to the air. That bullet can come down and kill someone.

CocoT · 03-25-2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah42

The law doesn't say you can shoot someone in the back when they're retreating. It only permits you to use deadly force if that's necessary to prevent your own death or injury.

Quote:

776.012&emsp;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&emsp;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

I don't think the law is at fault; it's misinterpreting and misapplying the law where the conditions aren't met.

Hmm... Good point. The law seems to be grossly misinterpreted.

But even so, I still think the law is problematic. Laws in general are always interpreted in ways that the creator of the law may not have intended. Either people need to go back to school and work on their reading comprehension skills or the laws need to be written in ways that leave no room for interpretation. Preferably both would happen.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Myradella3 · 03-25-2012, 04:21 AM

Now Zimmerman'slawyer is saying it's not Stand Your Ground, but self-defense.

So my question is the same: you can chase someone down, fight them, and when they fight back, you can kill the person in the name self defense?

happyface · 03-25-2012, 07:31 AM

.

sarah42 · 03-25-2012, 09:09 AM

I think most states have the "castle doctrine" that you don't have to retreat in your own home, but the "stand your ground" are only in a handful of states such as FL.

Good points about what would happen if someone initiates a fight, then when the other person responds, shooting them in the name of "self- defense" and "standing your ground." I would think that the initiator is to blame, or the one who escalates it to severe bodily harm.

My main point is that cases like Trayvon Martin or Yoshihiro Hattori are tragic and inexcusable. The "stand your ground" laws do not make it legal for them to have been killed. Based on the facts of the cases, the judges and prosecutors are not reading the laws correctly, and that misinterpretation is the injustice, not the laws themselves.

violets · 03-25-2012, 09:18 AM

I first read about this story 2 weeks ago in the NYTimes. I thought OMG how horrifying that someone call kill that child and claim self defense. BTW, Martin looked so cute in the picture to me, I was truly struck by the news. I don't normally get emotional over news.
Fast forward a few days I start to hear the story in the news.
OMG! The kid was walking, Zimmerman was in a CAR and he claims self defense. On top of that, the POLICE told Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

I hear on NPR news this week that area has a long history of crimes against blacks. KKK stuff etc. Which is not surprising, considering how the police is trying to cover Zimmerman.
I am so fuming over this it is not even funny.
To add insult to injury now they are trying to call Zimmerman hispanic. Yet they are full of crap is not even funny. The white media is trying to distance themselves away from this horrific crime. Now its the big bad Hispanics fighting the big bad blacks. Hugh, this story makes me sick.

curlyarca · 03-25-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myradella3

Can someone give me a logical reason that Trayvon was given a toxicology test but Zimmerman wasn't?

Don't you know black people are all hopped up on the reefer, crack, and malt liquor? It was the least they could do since Zimmerman was defending himself.

Seriously though, they probably run toxicology tests on everyone they do autopsies on. My best guess. And hope.

But yeah, they mos def should have tested Zimmerman. If anyone was probably hopped up on something it was probably him.