Even though he did not claim Stand Your Ground, they included Stand Your Ground in the jury instructions anyways. Your 1974 law was not the law the jury was instructed to follow.

It comes part-and-parcel with Florida's self-defense law. By claiming self-defense, Zimmerman gets Stand Your Ground wording and allowances by default. SYG is a modification of hte old laws and not something divorced from them.

... he should have the full civil immunity of SYG.

Because FL law prohibits such suits if a SYG hearing leads a judge to believe self defense was justified.

Furthermore, the Martins would be liable for attorney fees if they lose that hearing.

... but I don't think that has happened yet.

The previous thread claimed that SYG was already adjudicated in court.

GZ's actions didn't provably rise to the level of an aggressor (per the law).

Had GZ had a duty to retreat (absent SYG), he would have argued that he could not do so (claiming being under TM).

That's why this was a classic self-defense case, SYG or no.

He was clearly the aggressor, and the only reason the law does not clearly make him the aggressor is because the NRA has had a strong hand in Florida's insanely stupid gun laws. This amendment is a step towards fixing that, but there is clearly more that needs to be done because Florida's laws are totally unjust.

you don't like it, call the cops.

And you know damn well Zimmerman was doing a hell of a lot more than "talking".

If it did, then people could pop mentally unbalanced homeless people in the face and face no legal repercussions.

repeated talking to you because you want to punch someone and get away with it fails the self defense test. One must have reasonable cause to fear imminent threat to life or injury. Popping a homeless person who is viewed as a nut but harmless does not fit that criteria.

On the other hand, if one believes said person is a nut and is likely to engage in imminent violence to the point of injury or death, then one does have said right to "throw the first punch". I believe that's what happened with TM and GZ. GZ followed him in his truck (giving TM the creeps), then followed him on foot (with TM running for at least part of that time), caught up to him or cut him off somehow, started yelling at him, and possibly even put his hands on TM.

Personally I think that is reasonable to think that GZ meant TM harm, even if he didn't throw the first punch. Sadly the jury did not see it that way, but it kinda hurts when the only two people to witness the entire event were either deceased or did not have to testify.

Do not rise to the level of an aggressor, legally.

I was merely substituting other situations with the same criteria.

If GZ did grab TM, *that* would make him the aggressor. The state presented no evidence to that theory.

But I guess that doesn't matter to you.

is that she thought he would have told her if he was going to kick Zimmerman's ass.

Even though she was a witness for the prosecution, she did the defense several HUGE favors.

Trayvon was on the phone with her until 7:16, less than 30 seconds before 911 calls first started coming in regarding the fight. Phone records show that.

Trayvon's cellphone was found on the ground near his body, not in his pocket. Her testimony was consistent with that (testifying that it sounded like the cellphone hit the grass before it cut off.)

Why would someone planning an ambush give himself away by talking on the phone all the way up until the point of attack? Why would that person not bother to put away his cell phone before launching the attack?

Why would Trayvon ambush Zimmerman after having ran from him in fear and lost him? I'm still waiting for a logical answer on that one.

There. Was. No. Ambush.

None.

Why the jury did not put more into her testimony, I can't say for sure. Perhaps it was because she wasn't the most eloquent or refined of witnesses. But what she testified to actually did support the notion of Zimmerman as the aggressor.

And say what you will about her lack of refinement or eloquence of a witness, she pretty much stuck consistently with her story, and the evidence did support her.

It has been a tenant of common law as long as this nation has had laws that the aggressor is a confrontation is the first person to use physical force.

Nothing that was done recently, by the NRA, by anybody else, and this is the case in every state.

To allow him to claim self defense is insane, and yes the NRA did give us Stand Your Ground.

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

The two aren't the same.

You can tell me all you want about legal concept, but I am arguing that Florida has no concept of good law. The Stand your Ground law is an awful law and change is needed.

This? Whether one is an aggressor or not? Has fuck-all to do with SYG. It's older than SYG. Hell, it's older than our country.

*sigh*

All evidence points to Zimmerman being the aggressor, I think the law should have treated him as the aggressor. I am not required to agree with any of the laws you cite.

What, you think the NRA has a time machine?

This discussion with one so intentionally obtuse is reminding me of the axiom, "Never wrestle a pig in mud. You end up dirty and the pig likes it."

You seem to have a real issue with the fact that I disagree with the laws you embrace but I don't have to accept the piece of law you want me to accept. There is no way someone should be allowed to shoot a person in the circumstances Zimmerman did.

.. change things.

I get frustrated when someone's lack of knowledge leads to an asinine proposal rife for abuse by citizens and the government.

Imagine the scenario I hypothesized above. Should it be legal for a woman to mace / stab / punch a man chasing her to give her back the credit card she dropped?

That's just the first hypothetical I could come up with, in 30 seconds of pondering, should your standard of what comprises an aggressor come to pass.

Changing 400 years of law because of one case? Yeah, umm. No. Just no.

What I believe is that if it can't be proven who threw the first blow the actions leading up to the event should be taken into account in determining who the aggressor was.

*sigh*

And I remind you that even had the defense stipulated being the aggressor, the case would have ended the same way- and no, not because of SYG, but because of the 1974 law quoted above, signed into law by a Democrat, that is mirrored in damn near one form or another in all 50 states.

You can't work backwards from the premise you want, and make the law fit, facts be damned.

*shakes my head*

And the facts clearly tell me that it was not self defense, I find people who try to justify this murder abhorrent. What George Zimmerman did can not be justified and I want the law changed to prevent this from happening again, sorry you don't like that. Actually I'm not sorry, the law you are embracing sucks.

Nobody disputes that GZ shot and killed TM.

GZ claimed it was self-defense. The state did not prove it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

You want to throw out a long-held tenet of common law in favor of a vague, asinine, as yet undefined standard because of one case? Make a change that would not have even changed the outcome of this case?!?

I'm justifying nothing, I'm telling you why your suggestion is dangerous, unworkable, rife for abuse, lacking in forethought, against other tenets of common law, and just plain silly.

I can understand why you want do it, but that doesn't make it correct. The ends does not justify the means.

Innocent until proven guilty should apply to Trayvon as well, I don't want to live in a country where gun nuts can shoot people in the street and don't have to provide much of any evidence to show it was justified. I think self defense laws need to have higher standards for what constitutes reasonable self defense. This case proves that our self defense laws give too much benefit to the shooter and not enough to the victim. Gun nuts should not be given the right to be judge, jury and executioner, I want the laws changed.

I am bored going back and forth with you on this, so I will give you the last word if you want it.

I would certainly mace an unfamiliar man who was chasing me.

I'd rather go to jail than get raped or abducted or any of the other horrible things that frequently happen to women who get chased by strange men.

There was a recent incident around here where a man abducted a woman and her young daughter. Murdered the woman and raped the little girl. Really lucky for them that the mom wasn't carrying mace. She might have ended up in jail.

I'd just as soon take my chances with jail.

Stories will be running the story of the good samaritan and the crazy lady who assaulted him.

"Samaritan Sees Stars in Starbucks Situation!"

Last thing I need is some passer-by macing me for happening to be out for a run, and the misfortune of travelling in the same direction...

I've never maced anyone in my life and I've encountered plenty of joggers. I think I'm probably capable of telling the difference.

You're free to stoke your paranoia and your imagined victimhood all you like, though.

And anyway, if you do manage to make yourself look like a menacing stalker while out jogging, and you get yourself maced, you are then free to blow my brains out with impunity, so you'll be more than even. So I wouldn't worry too much.

and that's fine, but that's where it sounded like your post was leading.

Exactly how do you tell the difference between a jogger, about to pass you, and a sadistic fucking predator closing in?

Seems to me, that if said predators were just obviously up to something, there would be fewer victims out there because everyone would see them coming a mile away.

their truck while staring at you, then chase after you, then yell "WHO ARE YOU? WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"

No, they yell "miss (or sir)" and probably also "you dropped your card"

Also what the fuck situation are you imagining where a woman sees a man and starts running like hell and either before she starts running or during it she drops her credit card and a man picks up said card and just randomly runs after her without saying a word?

... and fixing the spelling

Following someone? That's all that the court could provably assert in this case, absent other witnesses.

If that's the case, I have to question your logic.

ie, Man chases after woman, she turns and maces him as an aggressor- he drops her credit card she left on the counter in the store they were just in.. Oh, no problem miss, you're just defending yourself. That about the size of it?

What constitutes an aggressor is well established in all 50 states. And that ain't it.

Grabbing someone, taking a swing at them- those things make one an aggressor. Racially profiling someone? Nope. Calling 411 on someone? Nope. Even yelling questions at someone? Nope.

As Rachel Jeantel testified Trayvon was saying "get off, get off" before the phone went dead, Zimmerman's comments "they always get away" backs up her account. All evidence points to Zimmerman being the aggressor.

He would be in jail.

.. even if so, GZ could not have retreated, as is required of an aggressor per:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

I also will tell you George Zimmerman did not exhaust every reasonable means of escape. He could have shot for the leg in the very worst case scenario, although that worst case scenario is not the scenario that most likely happened so shooting in the leg probably would not have been legal either. In that case Trayvon would have lived and might be able to prove that he was the one who was acting in self defense, by killing him and eliminating him as a witness George was able to avoid conviction. That is just one of the many reasons Florida's gun laws are so stupid.

If you're employing deadly force with the *intent* to wound, you will go to jail. Same way with warning shots.

Again, this 'aggressor' stuff? Isn't "florida gun law"- it's common law in all 50 states. Blackstone ring a bell? English jurist?

Great plan... Shoot the guys leg as it sits in direct contact with you in a fight.

Can't see anyway that could go wrong

It means that must shoot to KILL a person who is attacking you? You cannot wound them. Ok, what if you don't have a gun? Sorry, people, the law just "protects" you if you are armed? You throw something. You hit them with a brick. You tell your dog Brutus to attack them. Does not count? Now the problem there is that the odds are you are not going to kill your attacker but simply just wound, and STOP them.

So if you cannot just shoot a person in the leg, then wouldn't it be the same as using another means to stop them? By that I would take SYG to mean SHOOT TO KILL. Cannot do that without having a gun.

Now it's 'shoot to wound'. Shooting someone in the leg is just as much of an exercise of deadly force as shooting someone in the heart. It is likely to miss, but if you hit, there is a good chance you can kill anyway.

Either you are justified in using deadly force, or you are not. Period. End of story. Quit giving people bad advice.

It's legally hazardous as well, see Marissa Alexander, who discharged a firearm without intent to kill. They threw her in jail for twenty fucking years.

Your ideas have consequences if anyone is convinced by you, and employs your ideas.

ie, Man chases after woman, she turns and maces him as an aggressor- he drops her credit card she left on the counter in the store they were just in.. Oh, no problem miss, you're just defending yourself. That about the size of it?

Think about paparazzi. Are you claiming it would be kosher to strike them because they were following you?

Some strange man chases me, I'm going to mace him. Sorry if you feel like I'm cramping your style.

Perhaps you have the same name as the purported love interest of the latest reality TV star.

Would it be kosher to pop a paparazzi in the face for following you? He's 'a strange man' chasing you.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I don't mind dodging, I just don't want to be raped or abducted. If someone is chasing me and I feel threatened, I will mace him.

This legal outcome would have been the same if Zimmerman had no firearm at all, and instead used a knife, or broke Trayvon's neck with his bare hands, or caved his skull in with a nearby rock.

All the prosecution had to do was show that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Sadly, they lacked the evidence to seal the deal and meet the standard of evidence the jury required.

Martin was the first person to break the law in this case by attempting to kill Zimmerman. (yes, pounding somebody's head in cement is likely to cause death) If Martin was successful in killing Zimmerman he would be on trial for the same thing Zimmerman was.

.. then the statute doesn't apply.

Which wouldn't have changed the outcome of this case, in any event. The defense would have argued that GZ could not retreat, with TM on top of him.

The same would apply if a new (redundant) statute were passed.

first time around,

Trayvon should have been "offered a ride home" not stalked and killed.

Instead of allowing it to apply anyplace that a person has a legal right to be, it should be more restricted with the requirement to attempt to retreat if there's a possibility.

Homes and where you not only have a legal right to be but a legal right to deny others the right to be should continue as is, with the explicit provision that you have given the people instructions to not be there, it should be clear that they have no right to be there, and they have the opportunity to retreat.

----

The OP revision basically gives you the right to kill any aggressor. Especially given the squishiness of the terms used in this case, coming up with a clear meaning woud be difficult. Some assume that by following there was aggression. To speak is viewed as confrontation. Doesn't matter who swung first, some say, "stalking" initiated the confrontation ("stalking" here means following for a few seconds, losing for minutes, and then finding again for a few seconds after a search, presumably). Coming to agreement would be a bear at this point. And doesn't solve the problem.

A person attacked outside their home to have to base their actions on the well being of the attacker? That si what duty to retreat essentially means.

Should a victim who has means to defend themselves really have to spend time second guessing not only if retreat is viable, but also if they can prove it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, before they defend themselves?

Duty to retreat laws have the potential to treat a situation where a rape victim has to consider the safety of her rapist when deciding if she will fight back, and possibly see her prosecuted if she resists with force instead of trying to run- a. decision she will have to make under stress, scared, running on adrenaline in the space of under a second.

If the victim breaks his nose and bumps his head on the sidewalk then the rapist can shoot to kill?

As your data on what works and what doesn't is the kind of stupidity we expect from the other side.

Something has to happen with this SYG.

Nothing Zimmerman did would be considered initiating a confrontation in court.

You can't claim another person's legal actions are justification for self defense.

I could fart in your direction and (according to my wife) you would be justified in using deadly force as you would be in fear.

and Zimmerman's legal actions simply don't meet that standard.

I'd probably have a pretty good civil case against you for farting, but it isn't a reasonable reason to be afraid for my life.

Starting the confrontation means you are responsible for it and for everything that happens after it.

... so I beat him out of fear for my life.

I'm sure that will go well.

different than walking or even running in the same direction as me.

walking.

Nor do I confront them in a threatening manner by yelling WHO ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Also it is a big difference when a person gets out of or into a vehicle to follow you. Following by getting into or out of a vehicle alone does not quite rise to the level of implicit threat, but that IMHO does elevate things pretty close. Moreover, all that summed together IS an implicit threat in my mind.

1 or 2 of the 3 is not the same as all 3 criteria.

looking, walking in same direction, speaking to someone (even aggressively) is not enough reason without an actual treat, to initiate violence.

I want to be in court when they have the legal discussion about looking vs. looking intently vs. staring...

and they would not have justification for violence.

My mother who divorced my dad probably would though. His favorite thing before beating her was to call her fatty (even though she wasn't fat other than during pregnancy, and he was fat). So if after they were divorced if they bumped into each other and he yelled "hey fatty" she probably would have justification to use violence on him (not on anyone else who happened to call her fatty though).

And it isn't really intently looking vs staring, it's doing either WHILE slowly following me in your truck. That alone is certainly not enough to justify violence by the reasonable person standard, but if some dude did that to me and I ran away and he still caught up with me and started yelling at me, I believe I would feel reasonably threatened and do the same thing as TM. And I'd consult my lawyer before saying anything, though I'd probably say something to the effect of he put his hands on me and told me to S his D

The prosecution did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was the one who "started the fight".

The Martins' time would be better spent advocating for sensible gun control.

A discussion that is based soley on emotions??? Emotilns is what rules the day concerning this case.

why it couldn't possibly work!

... then what is the problem?

It's like trying to fix plumbing with chewing gum.

This whole vicious cycle is fueled by the Drug War and conservative politics. The Drug War creates a social cancer, and conservatism attacks the cancer victims.