please provide an equal amount regarding 'the many times when' to which you refer has had positive results.

If you can and do show proof, I am sure people will support your views.

In case you have not kept yourself informed and educated on this topic, just say so.

Then I will help you by digging through the information available, just as I sometimes answer questions like, "what time is it?", "where can i park?" or "what time does the bank open?"

instead of retreating. Those are my cases to counter yours. Now, are you saying that NEVER happens?

See, your request was as silly as mine!

The mere fact that justified homicides tripled in Florida is not evidence by itself that the law had been abused, and can in fact be used as evidence that it's working. The cases each need to be examined first before attempting to dish out any conclusions.

If you have some other evidence besides this, please feel welcomed to bring it forward.

To provide an equal amount, we'll need a specific number of CCW abuses, or some other concrete figure. There is the Brady Campaign list of CCW holder crimes and misdeeds. Do you want to use that for the yardstick?

If you do your research on that "list" by the Brady Campaign, you'll find out that the vast majority of those are not CCW holders. The articles from which they pulled their info only had to mention if the weapon was concealed and that does not automatically mean it was a CCW permit holder. They also tally suicides and cases still pending judicial results (guilty until proven innocent is a common theme for VPC and the Brady Campaign). So if you want to use false data as your standard, go ahead...

Even using the scummy tactics you cited, they managed to scrape together less than 200 cases in 2008(I only found the 2008 list in my quick search). The number of documented defensive gun uses blows that out of the water. Even faced with the most biased, falsified account by the most underhanded liars on the anti-gun side, we still soundly defeat them.

for all the facts. Much has not been made public. Wolfinger did not want to charge Zimmerman. He recused rather than charge him. Now a special prosecutor is looking at the same evidence. How could he be prosecuted? What case could the state make? In a normal murder case the Police are state witnesses. In this case they would be called for the defense. Who would the state call? Sharpton? The defense could use all the Police and witness reports as exculpatory evidence. The only way I see a chance to prosecute is if the FBI can turn up evidence of a Police Conspiracy. The Feds will have to go after the Police in Sanford and the Police Chief first. Get them for racial discrimination and cover up and falsifying evidence. Only then could the state make a solid case against Zimmerman in court. What do you think?

would have lived he would be able to provide the true story. I do not think we will even know what happened.

And Zimmerman will be able to tell any story he wants and really no one to counter it.

I am not 100% sure Zimmerman is guilty. But I am 95% sure he is.

I think he pursued the kid and confronted him and tried to detain him for the police. The kid fought back, got the better of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him.

Just my guess, no evidence I admit.

But I am interested in the legal situation as well. The good that could come out of this mess is if the Feds expose Police misconduct. Even though in this case it would be the reverse of the main problems we face with wrongful convictions. Amazing we are so upset about a perceived wrongful acquittal. Here we are with the Black Community fighting for exactly the opposite problems that they normally face in the Justice System. The get him at any cost mentality and stereotyping that is the norm in most cases of Black wrongful conviction. I hope this does not turn in to another Casey Anthony media disaster.

...wait for all the facts, you say. Cannot argue with that.

...i can't say that I would. It would depend on the circumstances. It may point to the laws needing some tweaking, but done away with all together? No.

just like OJ was found not guilty.

No witnesses and Zimmerman can make up a story on the stand.

You comment is like saying if a cop gets away with killing an innocent person, I think cops should not be able to shoot people.

Good laws are abused. It does not mean the law was wrong.

Is not relevant to your opinion. Instead you will continue to find any excuse possible for why the law is not the problem that it manifestly is.

The fact that Zimmerman was not arrested at the crime scene: explained away for various reasons none of them the obvious one that Zimmerman was acting within the boundaries of SYG.

The fact that weeks later Zimmerman has still not been charged with a crime - again couldn't possibly be the obvious reason, SYG covers his killing of Martin.

The likely outcome of a trial, if Zimmerman is ever charged with murder, is not guilty. The reason will again, in your mind, be anything but the obvious fact that this law permits Zimmerman to do what he did.

where in self defense cases the police collect the weapon and suspend the persons CC license until the case is determined.

But the wacky NRA would throw a fit about that. So the politicians will never do it.

The police should be in trouble for the handling of this case. They immediately made the judgement that Zimmerman did the right thing. My worry is that they thought that because the dead person was black.

Imagine a different case, where you killed a gang member who invaded your home and tried to kill you.

You're not charged, as there's no probable cause to do so while the investigation is ongoing. Would *you* want to be left defenseless as the other gang members start looking for revenge?

It would be no more than having to have a court order to obtain DNA or a bite impression.

Zimmerman. In many other areas of Florida a much better investigation would have been conducted and he would probably been arrested.

The "Stand Your Ground" law is not the "Pursue and Kill" law. It removes the duty to retreat when attacked but Florida law doesn't allow you to start a confrontation, shoot an individual and then claim self defense.

Of course we don't have all the information that the authorities have, but it sure appears that the authorities are doing everything they can to protect Zimmerman including misinterpreting the "Stand Your Ground" law.

It gives racist police departments cover for doing nothing about racist gun loons who decide to abuse the huge freaking loophole this law opens up for sociopaths who want to murder people.

Other than that it is a fine law.

in order to remove any ambiguities. I believe the basic concept of the law is clear but many with far more legal expertise than I have say that the law was poorly written.

Are you going to repeal that one too? And the one after that? Ad infinitum...

is that it is a HUGE window which racist police departments and/or sociopathic murderers can exploit. Better questions are what problems precisely was this nonsense supposed to solve, has it demonstrably addressed those problems, and has it done so without negative impacts, blowback if you will, that makes any benefit problematic?

I think the Martin case illustrates just how poorly SYG has served the public interest.

Juries monday-morning quarterbacking someone for not 'running away fast enough' before using deadly force to defend themselves from a pursuing attacker.

In Florida, I believe the cases that led to this law involved a senior citizen and a young mother.

This law doesn't apply if the person who uses deadly force is the aggressor or is engaged in a crime.

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

The Martin case doesn't involve SYG, no more than a criminal defendant trying to make a claim that the thirteenth amendment prevents them from being put in jail, or that the fourth amendment protects their jail cell from random searches.

"the aggressor" will be the dead person on the ground. This isn't complicated.

Without probable cause that a person didn't actually 'fear imminent death or great bodily harm', the police can't arrest a person.

That's assuming that the police force is actually not a sack of racist shits, of course.

No, if SYG had never been passed, Zimmerman (or his police buddies) would have merely said that he tried to get away from Martin, to 'retreat', and was unable to safely do so.

And without direct witness testimony to dispute it, we'd be in the same damned place. Collecting evidence, evaluating 911 calls, comparing Zimmerman's statement to witness statements, canvassing the neighborhood, etc.

You're right, it's not complicated, but I fear a lot of people don't understand how our justice system itself works. Heck, someone yesterday said, "Arrest him and investigate!" or words to that effect- flipping it 180 degrees out of kilter.

some prosecutor will have to prove a crime. This is the way every single suspect charged with a crime is handled. The police look at the evidence, contact the prosecutor's and relay the evidence. The prosecutor asks questions, the investigator answers, the prosecutor recommends arrest or release. It is up to the police if they charge the person and may/do arrest on different charges than the prosecutor suggested. Ultimately, if the person is charged, then found not guilty of the charges, the person can never be tried on this incident again.

What would you like to see changed? Specifically.

Not the Gun Law. Everyone is demanding an arrest. This is one case among thousands. The main difference is the media coverage. This one will go under the microscope.

If you do not realize what your argument can justify, I am sorry for you.

Clearly not.

Paragraph eight
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2109975,00.html?iid=tsmodule

I am sure that police, courts and emergency crews disagree with you. The law is being abused.

claims is one thing. Reality is sometimes different.
In this specific case, the probably is being abused. That does not change how duty to retreat was fundamentally unjust.

You won't be getting a job writing for Time.

do you have a valid point?