General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAm I alone in thinking they're hanging Zimmerman out to dry in order to protect Stand Your Ground?
After all, securing a conviction here mostly shows that he wasn't standing his ground, not that the Florida law itself encourages numerous senseless acts of violence each year. Is this too cynical to think Zimmerman is just the ballast they're cutting to help SYG float out of sight?
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)So did those drug dealers who carry out hits under the law's umbrella.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but i disagree that the syg law applied to zimmerman, as his defense attorney will claim in court. my thinking is more along the lines that the state seems to be going - zimmerman chases martin down and confronted him, making any claim of self defense problematic to say the least.
second degree murder is about one of the most serious things someone can be charged with. it essentially means spending the rest of your life or a good chunk of it behind bars. so it's a harder one to prove.
my point being is that if they are about to charge him with second degree murder the state believes they have a case despite the syg law.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Drug dealers carrying out hits? As if drug dealers care at all about the legality of their business? Besides which, the law explicitly does not apply to anyone engaging in any kind of illegal activity.
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)But more to your point, what I was referring to was mentioned on a number of newscasts (one was NPR & another was NewsHour on PBS--so not "yellow" sources), to wit, that a significant portion of the Stand Your Ground defenses since this law was enacted were argued on behalf of clients involved in drug-gang-relateds shootouts. Perhaps "hits" was an inelegant turn of phrase, but I don't think I was procliming my expertise in street lingo.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The "numerous senseless acts" are more a gross exaggeration than anything else.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I don't think that SYG applied to this case the moment Zimm decided to follow/stalk Martin. If you corner somone and they defend themself... that does not entitle you to stand your ground (to a confrontation you started).
SYG (and castle doctrine) laws' only purpose is to shift burden of proof to the prosocuter and to protect civil immunity for actual self-defense.
got root
(425 posts)ASAP
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The irony is that GZs prosecution is in part to protect a law that he claimed protected him.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)in order to save the texas death penalty.
so yeah, some of that could be at play.
dballance
(5,756 posts)Sorry to be possibly spreading rumors and I'll see if I can find the reference. If anyone already has it please post in a reply.
One of my friends told me the lawmaker who introduced and supported the SYG law said it was never intended to apply in a case like this. Could there be a bigger indictment of Zimmerman's actions? Sounds like the SPD was grasping for straws to find a way out for Zimmerman.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)SYG doesn't apply in this case. At least from all the evidence we've seen so far, Zimmerman was definitely the aggressor and Martin the party who had the right to feel threatened.
But if you listened to Ms Corey's conference you would have heard her say that SYG is an affirmative defense just like an alibi or other defenses. And it's one that her office already has a lot of experience in knocking down, according to her. They've won some and lost some, she said. So I don't feel the future of SYG is either enhanced or threatened by this case. It simply doesn't apply.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)1. That Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor -
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 others 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; or
2. Even if Zimmerman was found to be the aggressor he was not able to remove himself from the situation without using deadly force -
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.
Is following someone at night while carrying a gun considered an aggressive act? Who threatened who first?
I got beat up over at Free Republic trying to argue rationally and comparing this case to Trevor Dooley (who was charged).
I think it will be a bit of a reach to get Murder II unless they can prove the screams are Trayvon's.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)this abominable law has no place in a free and civilized nation. The gun lovers , the NRA and their masters, the death merchants will stop at nothing to make murder cheap, easy and consequence free. Sacrificing one for the cause is certainly within the realm of possibility.
supporters of this law are despicable. Anyone who claims this law has anything to do with self defense is either deluded or a liar.
derby378
(30,252 posts)...spare us your vitriol. The law is about self-defense. What Zimmerman did violated that law. Enough said. Boom.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)provis99
(13,062 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)just out there