"In a 22-minute video he recorded the night of the shooting, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said "I'm standing my ground here," and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded."

It's almost like he's trying to say all the right things in order to have a defense for what was about to happen.

he thought SYG and the 'magic words' would be enough. Since the evidence, and the video, showed the police did respond, and even were at the scene, it removed the question of who was the confronted.

If it had been his word against a dead victim this would not have made it to a jury.

it has always been that way in regards to self defense. Remember that SYG did not change the definition of self defense but merely explicitly extended to public places where a person had a legal right to be.

don't make it to a jury as it takes away the burden of proof on the shooter. As the shooter no longer has to prove he had no recourse to retreat. If there is abundance of proof, like witnesses and videos the shooter can be countered on his claim. With SYG laws, it's the shooters story against a dead victim's if there is no other evidence. In other words, no jury.

prosecutors didn't waste time on cases they could not prove.

And you are wrong about never seeing a jury. The shooter can claim reasonable fear but if the prosecutor disagrees then he is perfectly free to indict.

http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/04/11/ten_reasons_to_repeal_stand_your_ground_laws

1.       They require “law enforcement officials to prove that a suspect did not act in self-defense. [NYT] ” This burden of proof is a bridge too far on the presumption of innocence continuum.  You cannot prove motive with confidence on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the other guy happens to be dead.

2.       They protect shooters from civil suits, where the burden of proof for a civil judgement is lower. This means that when the state doesn’t press charges, no civil options remain to the victim’s family.

3.       Many of the victims have been unarmed (12 of 13 studied in a recent Orlando Sentinel investigation).

4.       Police chiefs do not understand the laws, and thus abrogate their duty to investigate fully in the first crucial hours following an incident, allowing vital forensic evidence to be destroyed.

5.       Clueless gun owners, like George Zimmerman, who are inclined to ignore or misunderstand regulations regarding use of a firearm, will falsely believe they have rights that they do not, in reality, possess.

6.       They encourage vigilantism by codifying a set of assumptions that magnifies the real degree of threat posed by “suspicious” persons possessed of unknown intent.  This effect is exacerbated by racial profiling, as well as outright racism, and further fueled by the now well-known “hoodie effect.”

7.       They represent an attempt to “normalize” the use of firearms in situations where the standard of proof is that of “feeling threatened,” a standard that is not codified with objective criteria under the laws.

8.       People under investigation for having committed a crime involving the use of a firearm already possess a presumption of innocence.

9.       They serve to reinforce the brutality of American society, driven by a paranoid sense of threat experienced by some armed civilians.

10.    They represent a license to kill.  And, as I have said before, it’s not gun nuts who bother me, it’s nuts with guns. I agree with Chattanooga, Tennessee gun enthusiast Sally Peterson who told WRCB TV,"You can't approach a person and draw your gun. I just think there are too many wannabe cops.”

They serve to reinforce the brutality of American society, driven by a paranoid sense of threat experienced by some armed civilians.

When I was born, lynchings and other terrorist acts were a common occurrence in the South. In my 30s I saw first hand the bloody carnage of the crack epidemic in America's cities. Since that time we have enjoyed a consistent and steady decline in violence in America - I have never been safer. And neither have you.

If you want to see paranoia up close, I suggest a mirror.

If the state does not press charges, it believes no crime was committed so why should there be civil action?

If the state does press charges and a jury acquits do you believe the family should still be able to take civil action?

Think OJ Simpson.

OJ said he did not do it, and the State failed to prove that he did.
in self defense cases, the shooter calls the cops and waits for the to show up. State does not have to prove anything, or at least much of anything in DTR. You have to prove you are innocent of murder or manslaughter or some other crime. Justifiable homicide is not a crime. Once you prove your innocence to a jury, why should a civil trial take place? So the girl friend or mom can cash in on Johnny Sociopath's or Mike Meth Head's death?

should the following things be admissible:
past criminal acts by dead person
any act of violence including animal cruelity by dead person
evidence of sociopathic behavior by dead person?

I say yes. This is why:

OK, family and friends are crying their little angel was murdered, totally ignoring the history of bulling, witnesses describing Jorge trying to retreat before the stabbing.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/jan/03/collier-judge-upholds-stand-your-ground-defense-ca/

If the "victim" is innocent then the shooter goes to jail, and can be sued. If the "victim" is an intruder, is robbing at gun/knife point, a child molester caught in the act, rapist, or other neer do well then the families should not be allowed to profit on his/her lack of judgment in selecting victims.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

because OJ was found innocent that the families of the victims should not have been able to sue him in civil court?

Yes. I was not on the jury so did not have full access to the evidence. If they said not guilty, then he should not have had to face civil trial.

Both the 6th and the 7th seem as valid as the 2nd.

In fact I believe the 6th and 7th support my position.

Right to a trial presumes the question of a crime. If no charges are filed, no crime.

Ad for the 7th, note the clause of a fact decided by a jury is not to be questioned. Allowing civil trial after criminally found not guilty essentially violates this clause.

One can be sued with no crime. The only thing that matters in a civil suit is if there was a monetary loss caused by the other party. Conviction of a crime makes no difference. That is why the family could sue OJ and win. It mattered none that he was acquitted of a crime. Any thing that he did, great or small, legal or illegal is fair game for a civil suit.

for something they have been exonerated criminally for is questioning the jury verdict.
By holding a person civilly liable after a criminal acquittal, as OJ, is essentially saying the criminal jury was wrong so we will try again in an easier forum.

If the U.S. adopted the Scottish option of Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven I could see the possibility of civil action after a Not Proven verdict.

In a self defense case I see no possible reason for civil action as it acknowledges the person acted against aggression. A trial could be held against the deceased to solidify that supposition but it seems that would be a waste of resources.

or attacks you on the street, and as a result of a legal defense of your, and /or your families lives, he dies should profit from the act?

Because the level of prove in a civil trial is lower than a criminal trial even when you are found "innocent", "not guilty" or no billed you will lose the civil suit.

Is that what you advocate for?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

OJ was not claiming self-defense. He was claiming that he didn't do it.

With self-defense you have admitted to doing the homicide, but are claiming that it was self-defense. If the state agrees that it was self-defense why should the agressor be able to sue?

You have tried the OJ analogy before and it has been pointed out to you that OJ didn't claim self-defense. But you ignore that.

with self-defense.

If you prove to a jury that Johnny Sociopath brought his demise on himself, you should not have to be victimized again by the assholes that did a shitty job of raising him. Kind of reminds me of a child rapist's family defends Johnny by calling five year old Suzi a slut and liar. Be around the corner long enough, you come across bullshit like that.
Sorry, I have zero sympathy. Just like the link above, where the dead kid's family sat through two days of witnesses describing how the killer tried to retreat first, the history of bullying that their little angel subjected Jorge to for months. Yet they whined and cried that Jorge was a murderer and everyone lied about the bullying. Well boo fucking hoo. They have no business trying to cash in.

I, and most of the gunners here, are anti-criminal. Your position is strongly pro-criminal. I recently came across a new item about a woman whose husband was being attacked by a burglar. She hit the burglar over the head with a jar of pennies, knocking him out and cracking his skull. After he recovered he sued her. He lost, but she still had the legal bills for her defense.

Democrats could win over a good many votes from the GOP if, as a party, we became stronger against crime, and more in favor of victims rights. Why should an innocent victim who successfully defends themselves be victimized again by a greedy family trying to win the lawsuit jackpot?

Of course, that was a ridiculous argument in the first place...