They are not permitted in this discussion.

The law was used in the determination to let Georgie go home initially.

It was also used by the jury in deciding his fate.

Of course, he didn't have to meet the burden of the law--because it wasn't "officially" used.

But let's be honest here...Georgie got all of the benefits of the law without submitting to the burden of the law.

Your calling him "Georgie" doesn't change that.

Asserting without evidence that such "law was used in the determination to let Georgie go home initially" doesn't make it so.

Asserting without evidence that such "It was also used by the jury in deciding his fate" doesn't make it so.

Republicans and Tea-baggers just make stuff up.

Can't we be better than that?

in determining the verdict.

Zimmerman relied on the Florida self-defense law, of which the principle of stand your ground is part and parcel. Just as in a case brought before the law was amended the instructions would, as a matter of course, included language regarding the defendant's duty to retreat, an instruction in a case brought today will, as a matter of course, include an instruction on the right to stand one's ground.

The assertion made by uninformed media clowns and others that because Zimmerman waived his procedural right to have his self defense claim heard in a pretrial hearing he somehow waived his "stand your ground" rights is simply wrong.

By the way, I do agree that stand your ground laws are problematic and need to be amended or repealed.

If you are arguing for repeal, what exactly is the standard you are calling for to replace them?

To what degree should victims be required by law to retreat when attacked in order to protect their attackers life?

Stand Your Ground means that even if there is ANY chance to escape, you don't have to - you can simply stand your ground and blow the motherfucker away. All you have to do is claim that you felt you were in fear of your life.

Having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk, where exactly does one retreat to?

Unless you want to count those little 'boo-boos' - which only required a band-aid for medical treatment - as the evidence.

Even the medical examiner stated that Zimmerman's "injuries" were very insignificant.

I know you gunners love the idea of being able to blast someone away when you feel threatened, but in this case the jury got it WRONG.

If a person is pinned to the ground and having their head slammed against a concrete sidewalk, to where do they retreat?

therefore, please let me leave and return to my vehicle while we await the police. I am sure that you will abide by this request. As such, I will not charge you with assault for what you have already done and everyone will be better off."

I have friends that live in El Paso. Did you know that El Paso is one of the world's safest cities?

And it borders Juarez. One of the world's most deadly cities.

And when I say borders...I mean, you drive down the road and Mexico is on one side and the US is on the other.

Great big international bridge.

They all say the same thing...if you are in El Paso and don't go to Juarez looking for trouble, you won't find it.

If you go to Juarez looking for trouble, you will.

I think the same advice applies.

Zimmerman was looking for trouble, he found it. And luckily, when he walked away, HE was the lone witness left alive to tell "the story" about what happened.

But trying to change laws everywhere based on one bad example is not good policy making.

Not all do.

So your whole assessment of the law is based on one case study.

Sounds like responsible, level headed policy making.

A statement from a case decided 50 years ago:

State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. 117 (1963): "One who merely does an action which affords an oportunity for conflict is not therefore precluded from claiming self-defense. Fault implies misconduct, not lack of judgment."

In other words, if someone makes the unwise choice of non-violently confronting another person, they can still claim self defense if the party they confront responds by actions that a reasonable person would view as creating an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. And if at the time the threat becomes imminent there is no opportunity for the defendant to make a complete escape, then the duty to retreat, even in a duty to retreat state, does not apply.

Which is another huge hole in Zimmerman's story.

What Z did - shoot first, lie later.

Because that leaves a ton open to second guessing.

210 pound male, 110 pound female, she is in heels- should she have to try to run and hope he doesn't outrun her? Does turning her back to try and run put her at greater risk?

Say she is black, attacker is white, and jury ends up all white males... Will they accurately judge if she could reasonably retreat?

Remove SYG and you make everybody have to second guess life or death decisions that happen at a monents noyice , leave every person who legitimately defends themselves subject to second guessing by sometimes very biased courts and prosecutors, and you set the stage for outcomes every bit as the Zimmerman trail was- like a woman who defends herself from a rapist, but the prosecutors office decides she should have run, so she faces manslaughter or murder for defending herself....

Before you knew jerk and demand the repeal of SYG laws, understand fully the unintended consequences it may have on real crime victims.

That said, the State should not attempt to broadly enforce a "duty to retreat" via the law, as such a law cannot remotely cover the myriad permutations of conflict situations. The individual must be allowed to decide the best response in the situation they actually find themselves in.

I consider it better to educate people (beginning rather early in school) in ethical responsibility. Sadly, many parents are not capable of this education, as they don't practice ethical responsibility themselves (and children often have a pretty damn good bullshit/hypocrisy detector). Incorporating ethics into curricula nationwide is a sorely needed reform.

I see no need for SYG laws, so long as there is no enforced duty-to-retreat and the law makes it clear that any right to "defend" yourself is removed when you are in fact the aggressor.*

All SYG means is that there is no enforced duty to retreat.

No enforced duty to retreat= SYG, just another way of saying it.

Yes, just because one does not have to retreat doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered and done when possible. But laws mandating retreat creat a whole new set of issues.

Zimmerman would have kept his butt in the car where he belonged. His gun and that law made him braver and stupider.

What standard and law do you propose to replace them with?

Have you considered the overall consequences of such a change, instead of looking at it through the prism of just this single case?

Why should a person have to retreat if someone breaks into his/her home? If someone breaks through my front door, I have to run out the back while he goes after my family and property?

Fuck that.

The Trayvon case was more about disinterested investigators and a set of unusual circumstances.

CD deals with the use of force to defend oneself (and others, and property) within the home, while SYG extends the right to use force - in self-defense, and without retreating - to places outside the home, to any ground where the self-defender has a right to be...