I firmly believe we cannot legalize the killing of another person simply because one is "standing their ground". If the person reasonably and actually believed their life was in danger I can see using deadly force. But this should have been proceeded with attempts to communicate with the alleged perpetrator to a cooling off stance.

You can't have someone walking out, seeing someone black, and immediately saying they felt threatened and killing them. There must be some affirmative act by the alleged "threat" to warrant the killing.

These insane laws need to go before more innocents are "legally" gunned down by nut cases.

The original concept was if you are out walking in a place you were allowed to be and a person jumps you and attempts to harm you/rob you, you no longer have a duty to run away. Unfortunately it has been abused by aggressors as a justification for murder.

Law isn't supposed to be drafted in a vacuum, one is supposed to anticipate the likely repercussions in a less than perfect world before one passes it.

And that is why the clown in the story in the OP is going to jail. He started the confrontation. He brandished a firearm. He did everything he could to escalate the situation. His victim was unarmed. The video shows no cause for him to be 'in fear for his life'.

nothing he did could be justified by the law. That is why Texas did not hesitate to charge him with murder.

Quick version: The law does not legalize killing without good reason.

If the person reasonably and actually believed their life was in danger I can see using deadly force.

That has always been a valid defense in any state in the US. SYG expands the sphere of locations where there is a presumption that the use of force was reasonable from one's home to anywhere a person has a right to be.

Because idiots read it and think it makes them into deputy sheriffs and their community into Tombstone, Arizona.

Like the noise. PersonB took a gun and went down to
PersonA's house and told him to quiet down. PersonA said he did not have to quiet down.
PersonB said "I have a gun. I am in fear for my life".
PersonA said "I am going into my house and I will be back with something, then you can fear for your life".
PersonB shot PersonA.

He said he feared for his life, but the facts and the video tape make that impossible to believe. Just because you say the right words does not make it OK to gun someone down in front of their house. If he really feared for his life, all he had to do was go home and lock the doors.

He had a feud with the neighbor.
He took a camera and loaded gun TO the neighbors house
confronted the neighbor and shot him
all the while taping himself saying things like " I am in fear for my life"
to use as evidence in his defense.
HE ws the aggressor/attacker.

I say a death sentence is too good, and will be made of how spectacular failure SYG or Castle Doctrine is.

makes us both blind.

*does the chicken thing*

for opposing the death penalty, so be it.

Castle Doctrine says I do not have to retreat from my home if threatened with deadly force/harm by an intruder inside of it. You cannot reasonably oppose such a law. It is ludicrous to support that I could be charged with murder for defending my family from rape/murder rather than jumping out of a window to fulfill my "duty to retreat". And that is the alternative to Castle Doctrine - fleeing your home to avoid confrontation, no matter what is happening to your family.

Thankfully this Castle Doctrine concept has been in British Common Law for centuries.

He apparently has a problem and it did not start with this incident. Also, in Texas we have a Texas Penal Code which deals with loud noises. He claimed to have call the authorities but was not patient to allow them to do their job. This code has authorities going to location and giving a warning and if a second call is made the ones causing the problem should be cited. I don't think Rodriquez used proper control and resulted in someone dying, then he was charged with murder. This is the right call in this case.

I was responding to post number 4, which was treating Castle Doctrine as equivalent to SYG and calling it a failure. Castle Doctrine has been a US legal concept since our founding. SYG on the other hand is new...

Like some others here, I doubt he understood that Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine are not the same thing.

the death penalty but he should get a rather lengthy sentence, possibly life. At any rate his life as he knows it is over.

Guy did everything except yell, "Action!" before going over there and murdering that guy. He just wanted to kill someone and get away with murder.

Welcome to DU, otherone!

in Texas.

they are so passionate about defending Zimmerman.

but i haven't been able to find anything on this case.

could it have anything to do with the race of the victims ? i think so.

*chirp, chirp*

means there is nothing from them on this case.

I searched from several angles- this never happened

There is a difference between "defending him" and pointing out "let's see where the real trial goes."
This guy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, not the court of media money grubbing for market share aka "trial by media" aka "electronic lynching". Big difference.

I haven't heard them or anyone like them demanding we should wait and see where the real trial goes.

They're usually saying something along the lines of "That little <insert whatever dog whistle they're currently using to mean "black".> got what he deserved. I wish we could do that to all of them.".

The Texas case had plenty of witnesses, and the conviction was the right call IMO.

The Zimmerman case has had every detail distorted by the media.

I do not wish to argue the Z case, because you and I have no factual knowledge of it.

seemed to show that there was some chance of his self defense claim

The later ones which showed an officer at the scene and the information that the police had responded to the complaint pretty much wiped out that angle.

Good verdict.

"10 codes" and therefore the cop must be drunk.

when I start talking in 10 codes

If I start talking in Mandarin I know I have to break off the kung-fu movie marathon.

since the shooting happened on the victim's property. Dude wasn't standing his own ground, he clearly instigated the incident.

and the defense in our homes, I also believe 'stand your ground' is stupid beyond belief (as is concealed carry laws) and that video or no that 'dude' was out to murder his neighbor and that if Zimmerman wasn't out to murder Trayvon, killing Trayvon was definitely on the table in his mind when he confronted him. These guys need to go to prison for very, very long times. I am against the death penalties.

Adios, Raul.

The shooter went to a location and confronted the individuals. He had no right under the stand your ground laws to do this. I guess there is a lot of pressure to get rid of the "stand your ground" laws but this is not an example of how they are supposed to work.

I think a lot of the "stand your ground" defense claims (aka Zimmerman-Martin) are a result of the shooter grasping at straws for a defense after murdering someone.

I personally believe that I have no duty to retreat and if confronted with physical violence; I have the right to end the attack. This DOES NOT give me the right to escalate the situation nor does it absolve me of the obligation to TRY to avoid a confrontation.

You CAN'T start shit and then expect to use a "stand your ground defense".

I have to agree with you Cronkite, plus the shooter is Hispanic and the victim appeared to be white.
This being Texas, I wonder if the shooter had been white and the victim Hispanic.....Nahhh, it's still murder, and justice is blind in Texas, ... right?

racism exists in the North. The strange thing is watching New Yorkers moving to Florida thinking they can be more open about it here.

Move here and then are surprised when you get pissed at their blatant racism.

would the jury have made the same decision?

Welcome to DU!

afterall Texas is exactly like the stereotypes people dreamed up.

Everyone rides horses everywhere, wears cowboy hats, and we dispense justice without a trial at high noon if we don't like the way someone looks.

Sheesh.

and how it is being used a justification for murder. Congrats to those championing SYG... I'm sure the victim's loved-ones will appreciate their plight.

Unless you count some pinhead's complete misinterpretation of the law 'encouraged' him do to it. In fact, I will even grant that the scenario is highly possible, given he filmed it, and seemed to be spouting keywords by rote 'you're armed, i'm in fear for my life' etc. Even with no apparent deadly threat in the video.

But that isn't an indictment of the law, and the problem will be self-correcting when people like him, and maybe Zimmerman too, go to jail forever as a public service annoucement.


SYG is fine. It needs to be applied equally (I will grant that it does not, because racial biases factor into enforcement), that is all.

He was following Martin and scaring the kid half to death.

I'm sure the same thing happens with duty to retreat. One of the strangest straw grasping was a case in Tampa I saw on the news. Some lady admitted to killing some one and claimed "self defense" thinking she would get automatic immunity. In the course of the police investigation, the cops figured out she could not have killed the guy because she was nowhere near the scene when it happened. I'm guessing she figured she could cover for someone and still walk.

that Rodriguez had given all the correct verbal warnings, etc. He seemed to think Rodriguez had a good case. Thankfully the prosecutor and jury didn't agree.

What he said wasn't believed.

Worse, the video clearly shows multiple people chastise him for brandishing a firearm, early in the confrontation.

It didn't work out for him.

but SYG has been used successfully in Florida by the instigator several times. But then, Florida makes Somalia look civilized.

to remove any ambiguities or confusion and a public service announcement should be televised to explain that the law is not a license to kill.

I also feel that any incident that involves a stand your ground defense deserves a thorough and unbiased investigation. If there is absolutely no question that the shooter acted by using legitimate self defense, he should not face prosecution. If serious questions exist, he should be prosecuted an have his day in court.

that's what makes them gun nuts

I'm hoping that you are not insinuating that all people who have carry permits are gun nuts and fear for their life.

it makes the prosecution's job much harder.

Zimmerman's twisted "well, I have injuries!" tactic doesn't wash because if he had let the police investigate his paranoic delusion that Trayvon was up to no good by walking down a sidewalk, there would have been no murder.

he doesn't have to prove his innocence. The prosecutor has to prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".

What he did was not illegal. The details of what exactly happened after Zimmerman talked to the dispatcher are not clear at all. The question is who assaulted who first - Zimmerman will say it was Martin.

like the dispatcher advised him. Everything that happened after Zimmerman disregarded that advice was his fault.

but that doesn't answer the question as to who committed the first illegal act. It was perfectly legal for him to follow Marten and to challenge him. What happens next is the question.

Don't forget that under Florida law, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, there are specific situations under which he could legally use force to defend himself. And you know his lawyer will us that as his defense.

If Trayvon fought off Zimmerman, he had a right to do so. Zimmerman's motivation was paranoia & he went out of his way to confront Trayon. Trayvon's motivation was to protect himself from Zimmerman's aggressive approach toward him.

The "first illegal act" was committed by Zimmerman when he shot Trayvon. The first point of discussion in the jury deliberations will surely be, why didn't Zimmerman listen to the dispatcher & wait for the police to handle his complaint? It's common sense.

it is illegal to follow and assault someone. It is illegal to follow someone and verbal threaten bodily harm. However, if I come up to up and ask "why are you here" that does not give you the right to pound my head in the concrete.

Go read the Florida law on aggressors and self defense. Zimmerman could have started the entire thing and still be legally entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. It is in black and white.

Having served on a couple of juries, let me tell you that common sense has no place in a trial. It is all about the letter of the law and how it has been interpreted. The lawyers will fight tooth and nail over what facts will be presented to the jury and you can be certain that very important information will not presented for various legal reasons. The judge will instruct the jury exactly what the law says and will warn them to keep personal opinions or "common sense" out of the jury room. He will also explain in great detail exactly what "reasonable doubt" means and how any doubt must be be decided in the favor of the defendant.

All I am saying is that everyone things this case will be a slam dunk while I think that people have unreasonable expectations as to the results. It will not be an easy conviction. With only one side of the story and the letter of the law being what it is, beyond a reasonable doubt becomes a very high bar for the prosecutor. In trials, the proceedings are slanted towards the defendant for obvious reasons. That sometimes means that guilty people go free - look no further than Casey Anthony.

a "stand your ground" defense if not for Zimmerman's vigilante attitude. You seem to think that common sense has no bearing on this case & that the judge will specifically instruct the jury not to use their common sense. The main point of this case has everything to do with common sense. Zimmerman made a very unwise choice & everything that followed was a result of that poor choice of action.

The verdict will be very much like the Texas case:

They could prove Rodriguez did all those things - there were eyewitnesses and he filmed it.

That is not the case with Zimmerman - there are no eyewitnesses to the moments right before the shooting. There is no evidence that he brandished his gun.

You need to look at the actual Florida law - there are specific instances where the aggressor can legally use deadly force in self defense. It is in black and white.

one down and placed in a cage. Hopefully another murderer will be convicted in FL next.

are a license to kill.

Obviously as shown by the results of the trial of this Texas man, this is false. The Stand Your Ground
law does not allow you to start a confrontation and then shoot someone.

that many people have interpreted the laws as a license to kill, including defendants, prosecutors, and juries; and that there is tremendous inconsistency in how these laws are applied, both among different racial groups, and among states.

Hopefully the media's attention to this Texas case will help the next Rodriguez or Zimmerman think twice.

It's important for people to understand that you have to have damn good reason to use lethal force and that you can't start the confrontation and use stand your ground as a defense.

If you are in a place where you have every right to be, are not involved in criminal activity and you are attacked by a person who has the ability and the intention of putting you in the hospital or six feet under, you should be able to defend yourself without having to retreat.

The catch is that a reasonable person standing in your shoes should agree with your actions.

I consider myself a reasonable person. In the situation described I would have asked the people to turn the noise down. When they refused and were belligerent, I would have left and contacted the police. The situation would have ended peacefully.

This fool assumed that he would be protected by the stand your ground law despite the fact that he was provoking people who had been drinking. He was obviously looking for a fight and an excuse to murder someone and he did. You never go looking for trouble because if you do it will find you.

Perhaps he believed what the media says and thought he would walk away a free man as he had a license to kill. He was wrong and I have absolutely no compassion for him. I do feel compassion for his victims and their families.

I agree that there has been inconsistencies in how law enforcement, prosecutors and juries have interpreted this law. In many states including Florida the law as written is confusing and ambiguous and needs to be rewritten.

as the jury obviously could tell. Why people are still whining about a law falsely invoked by a murderer I have no idea. If a guy gets a parking ticket even though he falsified a need for a handicapped permit and the judge saw through it, does that make handicapped permits and the laws allowing them a bad idea?

someone's husband or father!

A murderer is responsible for murder. Nothing else.

Life in the TDOC is not as forgiving as his neighbors were before he decided to enforce the law in his head on others. He is no longer presumed innocent and will not enjoy the liberty that he should have granted his neighbors, as they did for him.

The police had decided the law was not broken IRL and now he has a real life lesson to learn, if he can. If he has a mental health issue, life behind bars will be his nightmare come true.

What a terrible waste, all around. But he couldn't be allowed the freedom of the streets any longer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I kinda doubt it.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

ask questions later. If it were up to me anyone using stand your ground should have to prove to a court that their life was in danger or be convicted of murder. Human life trumps gun rights not the other way around. A man is dead, a wife is a widow and children are without a father because of the bullying of society by gun nuts!

The burden of proof is always on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime.

If it were up to me anyone using stand your ground should have to prove to a court that their life was in danger or be convicted of murder.

That wouldn't be just a rollback of the laws commonly referred to as Stand Your Ground. It would be a complete reversal of centuries of judicial practice.

A man is dead, a wife is a widow and children are without a father because of the bullying of society by gun nuts!

No, a man is dead, etc. because some idiot broke the law.

BTW, did you know that he was convicted of murder?

1. reasonable restrictions to carrying guns were done away with and 2. stand your ground laws were passed. Gun nuts feel free to carry loaded weapons where the hell ever they want and can shoot who ever they want and say they were in danger.

That is de-evolution!

HTH

innocent person lost his life because the wrong kind of person owned a gun." Not, "There should be no restrictions on my right to hug my warm fuzzy gun!"

A pro-control person saying "Let's get the facts and let the DA determine charges" before pronouncing the shooter guilty of murder based on the fact someone was shot.

May I also note, not a single pro-gun person has screamed that the verdict is wrong or that there was any failure of the legal system.

So it was pretty easy to determine the facts in this case.

The only question was whether a jury would believe that he feared for his life.

judgment is often made long before the facts come out.

In this case all the information was shooting, teacher... And many had pronounced him guilty.

My own opinion was that there could be justifiable self defense. As more info came out, primarily through the video, it was clear he had acted far beyond what is accepted. He was the aggressor and is guilty of murder

every time something like this happened there weren't plenty of people using the tragedy to push gun control.

If every time there was a car wreck about 20% of the country started demanding we ban all cars you would hear a lot of "now let's not use this to ban all cars" preemptively from the other 80%.

The Harris County DA had some good comments about this defendant http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-stand-your-ground-defendant-found-guilty-3630968.php

Prosecutors said Rodriguez, 47, was parroting buzzwords he learned in a concealed handgun licensing class like "I'm standing my ground," and "escalating the situation" to bully his neighbors.

"Raul Rodriguez is a neighborhood bully who had a CHL, an arsenal of weapons and a knowledge of the law," said prosecutor Donna Logan. "He felt he had the ultimate control, the control to decide who lives and who dies."

She told jurors that "self-defense was never meant to protect the one who started the fight."

I hope he's learned something from this experience.

has some right thinking people and that the correct sentence was given.