Casey Anthony probably could have shot her 2 years old daughter instead of all the shit she put everyone through in finding Caylee. The child was threatening her party life. It may as well go to those extremes.

Case in point, the shooting that is being discussed in Florida is not justified by any stretch of any law covering self-defense in the United States, and the shooter is probably going to go away for at least manslaughter, possibly murder in the second degree. This is simply a case of people taking the advantage to spin moral outrage at something which doesn't actually exist they way they describe it.

Guess what: almost every state has "stand your ground" type of laws. They have not, despite panic-mongering, resulted in a wave of random murders excused as self defense.

It is being interpreted very broadly in some cases. Whether you or I think so, Zimmerman may get off because of it.
There is a huge gray area, and how it is interpreted is important.

so this part of your post probably going to go away for at least manslaughter, possibly murder in the second degree is patently false.

as for this part

Guess what: almost every state has "stand your ground" type of laws

Most of the states are stripping away voting rights, union formation rights, reproductive rights, and privacy rights too. Hooray for the right wing!!

The problem is, it doesn't. Go and read the Florida shoot first law.

English common law already recognizes that citizens don't have a duty to retreat in their own home. So while it might be true that most states have incorporated some of these principles into their self defense laws, it's a very different thing to say that "almost every state" has laws like those of Florida. The so-called Castle Doctrine, as the name implies, refers to your castle, or home. The Florida law applies to virtually anywhere, and not just in your home as it does in some other states that have similar laws.

If you read the fucked up LaPierre written Florida law, you'll find that all that's required is the "reasonable belief" that you are in fear of bodily harm or that someone is about to commit a "forcible felony", and this doesn't just apply to inside the home. It applies to just about anywhere. So it doesn't matter that Zimmerman stalked and persued Martin. It doesn't matter that he was told by the cops not to persue him. It doesn't matter than Zimmerman was a cop wannabe that didn't know his thumb from his dick. It doesn't even matter if you, I, the DA, or the pope didn't reasonably believe he had cause to use deadly force. It only matters what Zimmerman believed. This is why he will probably get off, assuming he's ever charged in the first place.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

[div class='excerpt']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.

I don't know if Zimmerman's stalking Martin rises to the level of 'stalking' in law, but if it does, then 'stand your ground' does not apply. Nor does it apply if Zimmerman grabbed Martin (a forcible felony- assault.)

And I highly doubt that Zimmerman is going to tell a tale that is disadvantaged to himself. I have little doubt that Zimmerman has told the cops he was just trying to talk when Martin started hitting him.

Interviews, neighborhood canvassing, computer reconstructions, etc.

The problem is only Zimmerman knows what really happened because he was the only one there that's still breathing. So if his story doesn't jive with the forensics, I can imagine it won't be long before he's in the big house being used as currency. However, if there's any doubt or question whether he's telling the truth or not, he gets the benefit of the doubt because the Florida law protects shoot first gun nuts, even anencephalic loser cop wannabe gun nuts like him. That's what you get when your state lets the fringe nuts write your gun laws.

"Officer, I was trying to get away, but I couldn't safely do so." (Which would be the defense in a non-castle-doctrine state.)

You'll notice this is similar to the statement we first heard from him. That's no coincidence, I'd bet.

So *even without* 'stand your ground', we'd likely be in the same place.

"How the hell is shooting somebody in the back of the head any type of sef-defense??? "

I agree with what you say here. If someone has their back to you there should be
a question as to whether the person is retreating and therefore you are no longer in danger.

As for your saying, " 'Shoot First' is what some of people call the law." This is no better than Fox news. Stand Your Ground does imply that an individual has the right to stand their ground in the face of intimidation. The name, I would guess. unfortunately, inhibited the law makers from adding a stipulation that you, at least, try to retreat before you use lethal force. I think that is unfortunate. Even the first rule in martial arts is to try to retreat and avoid the confrontation.

The case in Florida shows that the Neighborhood Watch guy was and has been very zealous in his efforts to "protect" his community and the fact that he got out of his car and initaited a confrontation points to the possibility that he was the agressor and contributed to the escallation of the situation.

I also don't know why they don't have pairs of people doing the Neighborhood Watch. This would
at least provide a witness and cause some people to think twice before they overdstep their
authority and get themselves into trouble. I always thought that there were guidelines for the Neighborhood Watch program.

to protect your LIFE, not your PROPERTY. So even if they are running away from you home with a million dollars worth of jewelry, you LIFE is no longer in danger.

"Stand your ground" should not be against a FLEEING burglar. These people seem to think it is a legal free for all to do whatever their trigger happy fingers want to do.

I don't think I said anything that disagrees with you...

Stand your ground says that an individual has the right to "be someplace"
without having to fear for their life.

I did say that I though there should be more guidelines in order to avoid
people abusing the law. I do agree with what you are saying.

You can shoot them if they're 500 feet away from you. All you have to do is tell the cops you had a "reasonable belief" that somehow, they presented a threat to you.

And a drug dealer could use this law to likewise shoot a cop coming to arrest him; after all, he has a "reasonable belief" that the cop intends to do him harm.

Have any scenarios you think would work?

It also doesn't apply for your 'cop' scenario - http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.051.html

And it doesn't apply for a drug dealer - http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

Sheesh, actually know the law, eh?

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.013.html
776.013(3)

[div class='excerpt'](3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Exclusion for aggressors:
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

[div class='excerpt']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.

'Forcible Felony' defined

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.08.html
[div class='excerpt']776.08 Forcible felony.

"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

And criminal / civil immunity

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.032.html

[div class='excerpt']776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Anything you'd care to discuss?

Why should you cede ground to a violent attacker before defending yourself?

Much of the impetus for this law was a couple of cases (one in Palm Beach, one in Hialeah, I believe) where folks were charged with manslaughter for not running away quick enough before their attackers caught up with them, then killing their attackers. One was a senior citizen, if I recall correctly. This was back in the late '90s, so details are a bit fuzzy.

armed with a bag of skittles.

In this specific case, the weight disparity tends to discredit Zimmerman's claim, and undermines the 'reasonableness'.

There's nothing in Florida law that says you have to meet the means of illegal force with the same means. (Nor any state that I'm aware of.)

If there is a reasonable way to retreat, then you are expected to try. You are not expected to jump walls or run the equivalent of a 9.0 hundred meter sprint.

If you are being imminently threatened, you have no requirement to move. However, if you know a threat is possible and see it in time, the law requires you to try to avoid it.

People have this notion that they aren't going to move a step because they have a right to be there. It seems cowardly or wrong to move. You have a right to be in the road with a speeding car coming too. You'll move to avoid the damage.

When you don't move when you can, you are increasing the certainty of a confrontation. Then you are going to be caught up in an avoidable mess that may or may not find you charged with a crime. I wouldn't want to leave myself open to being caught in the justice system.

If it's reasonable, I would move rather than have my life tied up and left to the possibility of jury decision. Don't ever think your opinion of a situation will save you. You could be painted as Bonnie or Clyde and lose.

as well as all of the guns practically any loon or cop wannabe can get his hands on. In fact, since the move from DU2, these fanatics run the place down there. It's a little slice of Freeper heaven, right here at DU.

Go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172.

You can read ad nauseum about why people need to carry guns in public parks, restaurants, bars, churches, at work, walking down the street, etc. Plenty of threads on why we need millions more guns in society; how more guns has produced a decline in the crime rate (although they swear they aren't really saying that, even though they do); pleas to wait until all the facts are in (or the incident "blows over&quot on this BS shooting of an unarmed teenager; and similar pro-gun junk.

Plenty of gun porn too, professed love for NRA and Republicans who support more guns in society, etc. There's even a monthly update of how many new people signed up to carry a gun or two in public.

Not just for the rights you like or agree with, but for everyone.

Prime example of what I was talking about above.

You dont. Please dont put words in my posts that I havent posted.

is approaching zero.

Nor was it meant to promote more guns in society.

Hopefully, we'll get rid of some of the right wingers on the SC and get back to some reasonableness on whether every yahoo -- like Zimmerman -- should be free to tote a gun or two every time they leave home.

Supreme Court decision, the Miller case. They acted like it didn't matter one whit what the USSC had said about the 2nd amendment, by Gawd their "right" to tote cannons around in their pants was absolute.

After Heller, all of a sudden you'd have thought the five right-wing assholes on the court had come down like Moses from the presence of the Almighty, bearing that narrow 5-4 decision on divinely written tablets.

And it's awful strange how much praise they heap on those five right-wing assholes, while at the same time maintaining (the fiction) that they are devout liberals.....

It's called "execution-style murder".

The person that did just that got off Scott Free...The person that was shot in the back of the head was also climbing out of the water and not even on equal footing as the killer..

From the gungeon

Holder calls for brainwashing to help the antigun message soak in

...lots of anti-DoJ cheering...

AG Holder - Racist gun control agenda?

Arizona House Votes To Repeal Gun-Free School Zones

...lots of cheering of Jan Brewer, the right-wing AZ leg., Sheriff Joe....

and my favorite...

I am posting on all expansion of gun rights, no matter if a R or D passes it

I just wish you gunsters would start your own web site - gununderground.com. This one of for Dems, liberals, Dem ideals, and the like You're the only ones who get to applaud right-wing and Republican laws and politicians. It sort of lends a stink to the entire forum.

If it bothers you so much why do you bother to come to the site?

I understand that supporting the 2nd ammendment is not a Democratic priority
but we are here in support of gun collecting and competition.
We are not here to support wars or poorly formulated laws.

Why not just discuss the pros and cons of the subject
and not get so upset that someone has a different
opinion than you do?

Again, why do you bother to come here and yell at everybody?

Many support politicians who advance gun rights, even if those same politicians support voter suppression, racism, birtherism, anti-choice legislation, union-busting, and so on. And they state in these forums that their only issue is gun rights. Which is their right, but they really don't belong in the Democratic Underground with such attitudes.

As I stated a few times, if a member were to announce, "I'm voting for Santorum because he's anti-choice", that member would be a former member very soon. But "I'm voting for Brewer because the Dem wants to ban 50cal weapons" is just fine. Strange disconnect.

I agree with what you have said. Basically, how many right-wing issues can you
support before you have to say you're not a Democrat?

I have written letters to the NRA saying that I can't support Republican candidates
and that they should realize that there are Democrats who support gun issues
and they need to develope a relationship with the Democratic party.

For some reason, being against war and violence does not mean that
I am not going to collect guns and shoot in competitions.

I have asked myself and the only thing I can think of is that my father introduced
me to shooting when I was 8 years old. I am from Mass, and my father and
grandfather were Quakers. I don't know what to say. Honeing my skills of target
shooting requires an intensity and concentration that I enjoy.

you support right-wing horseshit at the expense of tens of thousands of American lives every year. So I guess being honest about at least one out of two things isn't bad.

I will still post as I see fit and you will probably still argue

You show no willingness to try and see a different perspective.

That sounds Republican to me.

I though it was Democratic Underground. Democrats are not some monolithic hivemind bloc, we can think for ourselves. We have Liberals, centrists, conservatives in this mosiac.

If you choose not to possess a weapon for self defence, thats fine, it is your choice to do so. Dont try to take My rights away because you think you are better then me, thats GOP thinking.

The ad Hominem insults to a section of Democrats here just because you are afraid of, or disagree with them, doesnt add to ones credibility to discuss a point of view.

I've owned firearms since I was 18, I've killed no one, I am not a klansman, fascist, nazi, reichthuglican, freeper or any other epithet you want to throw down. I am an American and a Democrat and will excercise my rights as I see fit, not as you want me to.

Ahh I love the tolerance and brotherhood you espouse to fellow democrats. How Rovian in its acceptance. Seriously I have the right just as you do. If you dont like that, well we just have to disagree, but you will not take my rights away to assuage your fears.

Your position is if one owns a firearm one cannot be a democrat?

because you want an Echo chamber to espouse your views and only your viewpoint. Frankly thats fine, until you decide to infringe on my rights. Your Insinuations have no basis in facts and i will not stoop to your level of adhominem insults.

Sounds to me like "cry me a river" is the one looking for the fight.

Why can't you accept that there are many Democratic gun right supporters here?

We're not trolls.

We're not looking for a fight.

We are Dems AND we will support our rights.

Why is that difficult for you to accept?

"Your position is if one owns a firearm one cannot be a democrat?"

DINO

You need to post in the rules that
If you are not a moderate or liberal Democrat you need not post on OUR pages.
Sounds like a Repub rule to me!

A conservative Dem is still supposed to be more liberal than
a liberal Repuke.

Why don't you start a group call Liberal Democrats Only
and you'll be much happier...

Something tells me that you come to the group because
you like to argue. whatever

Now that I've read for DU that were posted, by apocalypsehow, I see I am wrong

I thought that this was a site for Democrats

I see it is a site for LIBERALS OF LIKE MIND

I appologize and I will keep all my future posts very liberal.

Sorry to bother everybody....

of any stripe:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today

Would you like a link, or do you think you can navigate there yourself?

I dont agree with censorship, racism either, horrors what does that make me

the word "assume"! Who ever would've thought of such a thing before?

As to your absurd question, you're the one who brought up what a glorious "mosaic" it was with conservatives in the picture:

"We have Liberals, centrists, conservatives in this mosiac"

I guess you're having trouble keeping track of what you post on DU.

The truth is the Democratic party isnt just Liberals, it is Liberal, Centrist and Conservative viewpoints. I cant help that you choose not to accept that truth, but conitue classifying me to your biases.

with open arms. Which as you were shown, is bullshit. As is most of this silly routine of yours.

You seem to miss the point that there are conservative Democrats.
Supporting gun rights does not mean that my brain has atrophied and
I have turned into a Repuke. I am a liberal Democrat who supports gun rights.

If it bothers you so much why do you bother to come to the site?

I understand that supporting the 2nd ammendment is not a Democratic priority
but we are here in support of gun collecting and competition.
We are not here to support wars or poorly formulated laws.

Why not just discuss the pros and cons of the subject
and not get so upset that someone has a different
opinion than you do?

Again, why do you bother to come here and yell at everybody?

I thought that this was a site for Democrats

I see it is a site for LIBERALS OF LIKE MIND

I appologize and I will keep all my future posts very liberal.

Sorry to bother everybody....

I mean, who could have possibly figured that with all the weapons at hand in a society that reveres violence above all else, that a law like this would be seen as a practical grant of permission to commit a "justifiable" homicide? You'd have to be Nostradamus to see that coming!

I dont know who is trying to make it that, but it isnt correct. Stand your ground means you dont have to retreat before using neccessary force. Zimmermann if the reports accurate went after the teen even after a Police dispatcher told him not to. Thats NOT stand your ground as the law was written.

In NYC for instance I find a person with a Knife in my apartment If Ieven have a Permit for a Pistol, rifle, or shotgun I must retreat behind another locked door first, then if the person breaks through I am allowed to defend myself and family- the retreat scenario. I still will wind up arrested, booked and in Rikers until arraignment. The NYC D.A.'s will likely call for maximum prosecution as is SOP in NYC.

If I find a man with a Knife in my living room in texas uninvited, I can use lethal force as the presence of his knife is itself a lethal threat to myself and family- Stand your ground scenario

in the back yard too.

You and I might not interpret it as a case of standing your ground, but that doesn't mean that's how it will be decided.

He's been quoted as saying to the news media that he can't find any evidence that Zimmerman didn't shoot in self-defense. Seems like a hell of a lot of evidence that he didn't shoot in self-defense to me, but the police chief says not.

with a big huge internet full of both conservative AND pro-guns-for-everyone-anytime-everywhere websites and discussion forums, you feel the need to post here?

It's almost like a pitiful challenge you've given yourselves: "by Gawd, I'll show those liberals by posting my pro-guns-for-everyone-anytime-everywhere views on a liberal website, and pretend to be one of them while I'm doing it!!!"

The gungeon has long been a right-wing cesspool, full of obvious trolls. But I just never have understood the allure of pretending to be something you're not, in order to gush about guns.

Having never posted in the "Gungeon" before (I'm sure you checked in your Mccarthyesque attempts to judge me) I have never said Guns for all, everyone, anytime, everywhere. You again try to put words into my posts that werent made in this thread. I own a firearm, that doesnt mean you have to, need to, or want to. But you have the right to own them if you so choose, that's all.

Nowhere do I support Zimmermann, frankly I think the D.A. should indict him for his actions. He wasnt defending anyone from a lethal threat and the police chiefs views arent the final word.


For those viewpoints I am immediately personally attacked by you.

When talking about the Gungeon.
The Gungeon is dead.

They started more baiting threads in that subforum than a bait shop!
Chums.
I love that.

"gatekeeper' to DU. Perhaps you would be happier at another website that allows only groupthink....

What exactly is it that bothers you about a jury of peers reviewing the evidence and determining guilt or innocence in the cases you presented?

Sure one charge was dismissed by a judge, presumably on lack of evidence.

You bet your top dollar he will.

That it and its low threshold exists as a potential defense for such a sickening situation, even if the facts don't fit square within that exception, is cause enough to scrap the damn thing.

But thanks to this little troll:



And her willing accomplice:



SYG is the law of my state. Disgusting.

[div class='excerpt']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.

or put on trial. Fat chance he ever will be.

BTW, you should have a warning to go along with that first pic. WTF is that?