Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's pretty clear to me that most here do not understand the law. Let me break this down so everyone can stop arguing over the law.
The "stand your ground" law basically says you do not have a duty to retreat when faced with deadly force. Period. This is the rule in most states. The minority of states say you have to try to retreat *when it is reasonably feasible to do so without placing yourself in more danger.* I put the last part in asterisks because the reality is that in most cases even in minority rule states, it's very easy to say it would be unreasonable for the defendant to have run away. So the operative difference between the two rules is probably pretty small (in theory).
The law does not change basic self defense. In Florida you still have to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Every word in these statutes has technical meaning, and non-lawyers are really not qualified to opine on them. "Reasonable," for instance, is a huge limitation on the kind of fear the defendant has to fear to claim self-defense. Merely claiming you are threatened is not enough. Being unreasonably scared is also not grounds for self defense. A lot of people are confused (and who can blame them with the atrocious media coverage in this case) and seem to think that simply saying "I was really scared officer!" immunizes you from prosecution. This is utter nonsense. The media coverage on legal topics is always horrendous, and this is no exception. Unqualified journalists with no legal training try to give opinions on technical legal matters. There may be intelligent critiques of "SYG" style laws, but believe me, you are not getting them in the print or television media.
Anyway, whatever you think "stand your ground does," it doesn't. It does not give you any more license to kill someone than you have under normal, ancient self defense doctrine. All it does is takes away the duty to retreat that some common law jurisdictions imposed in self defense cases. "SYG" is an extension of an older principle called the castle doctrine, whereby people do not have a duty to retreat in their homes. "SYG" simply extends this to any place where a person has a right to be.
Under Zimmerman's claim, the "SYG" law is clearly inapplicable. He claims he was on the ground. Retreat is by definition impossible. So "SYG," as innocuous as it is, does not even come into play as a legal matter. Unless Zimmerman radically changes his story (which we have no reason to suspect he will do, since he has been consistent the whole time), "SYG" is inapplicable. "SYG" is a strawman put out by the liberal media and activists to confuse the issues in this case and try to drum up a phony "national debate" on self defense laws.
What did come into play in Florida was Florida's requirement that there be probable cause before an arrest is made in a self defense case. But police still have all the normal investigative powers in self defense cases in Florida, and the end result is the same in theory as it would be in jurisdictions without this immunity. The law is designed to avoid the absurd result of punishing the victim twice by forcing them to sit in jail while police investigate. Also, under FL law, self defense is not an affirmative defense, which means that people who claim self defense are immune from prosecution unless the state can show probable cause it was not self defense, and get an indictment. Note that these aspects of FL law apply in all self defense cases, not just "SYG" cases.
Last edited by needTXinfo; 04-06-2012 at 11:26 PM..
Show me ANYTHING that even resembles me making that statement.
You implied that a t-shirt was a basis for passing judgement as to who had the better character. Don't pretend that Trayvon Martin has not been judged on this forum based on photos (many not even him) that show a black kid wearing trendy "gangsta" gear.
If you turned on Fox News today, you’ll see the word “thug” repeated so often that you’ll think you’re watching a gangsta rap retrospective on MTV2. Between Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove, the rightwing echo machine is throwing the word “thug” around more than Tupac, Biggie, and Trick Daddy rolled into one. Why “thug”? Because terms like “bully” just don’t have that extra zing of racism that the rightwing wants. The way they’re using “thug,” it’s a racial slur, and a vicious one at that. They shouldn’t even be allowed to say the word “thug” out loud. It should be called the “T-word.” And when Karl Rove uses the term, it definitely becomes a racial slur. Of course, that’s true of an awful lot of words. Randi Rhodes
You implied that a t-shirt was a basis for passing judgement as to who had the better character. Don't pretend that Trayvon Martin has not been judged on this forum based on photos (many not even him) that show a black kid wearing trendy "gangsta" gear.
I implied that it's ridculous to call anything from fox news "racist remarks from some azzwipes catering to the lowly uneducated masses" when responding to a post that has in the preview for a video a picture of a guy wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Zimmerman on it with the words "p*ssy ass cracker". That is a "racist remark from some azzwipes catering to the lowly uneducated masses" if I've ever heard one.
If you turned on Fox News today, you’ll see the word “thug” repeated so often that you’ll think you’re watching a gangsta rap retrospective on MTV2. Between Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove, the rightwing echo machine is throwing the word “thug” around more than Tupac, Biggie, and Trick Daddy rolled into one. Why “thug”? Because terms like “bully” just don’t have that extra zing of racism that the rightwing wants. The way they’re using “thug,” it’s a racial slur, and a vicious one at that. They shouldn’t even be allowed to say the word “thug” out loud. It should be called the “T-word.” And when Karl Rove uses the term, it definitely becomes a racial slur. Of course, that’s true of an awful lot of words. Randi Rhodes
First of all, why do a care what some rabid liberal thinks. Second of all, "thug", a racial slur? Are you f'n serious? When I had to argue with another poster the other day about how "cracker" isn't a racial slur, but "thug" is? This crap gets more asinine everyday.
It's pretty clear to me that most here do not understand the law. Let me break this down so everyone can stop arguing over the law.
The "stand your ground" law basically says you do not have a duty to retreat when faced with deadly force. Period. This is the rule in most states. The minority of states say you have to try to retreat *when it is reasonably feasible to do so without placing yourself in more danger.* I put the last part in asterisks because the reality is that in most cases even in minority rule states, it's very easy to say it would be unreasonable for the defendant to have run away. So the operative difference between the two rules is probably pretty small (in theory).
The law does not change basic self defense. In Florida you still have to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Every word in these statutes has technical meaning, and non-lawyers are really not qualified to opine on them. "Reasonable," for instance, is a huge limitation on the kind of fear the defendant has to fear to claim self-defense. Merely claiming you are threatened is not enough. Being unreasonably scared is also not grounds for self defense. A lot of people are confused (and who can blame them with the atrocious media coverage in this case) and seem to think that simply saying "I was really scared officer!" immunizes you from prosecution. This is utter nonsense. The media coverage on legal topics is always horrendous, and this is no exception. Unqualified journalists with no legal training try to give opinions on technical legal matters. There may be intelligent critiques of "SYG" style laws, but believe me, you are not getting them in the print or television media.
Anyway, whatever you think "stand your ground does," it doesn't. It does not give you any more license to kill someone than you have under normal, ancient self defense doctrine. All it does is takes away the duty to retreat that some common law jurisdictions imposed in self defense cases. "SYG" is an extension of an older principle called the castle doctrine, whereby people do not have a duty to retreat in their homes. "SYG" simply extends this to any place where a person has a right to be.
Under Zimmerman's claim, the "SYG" law is clearly inapplicable. He claims he was on the ground. Retreat is by definition impossible. So "SYG," as innocuous as it is, does not even come into play as a legal matter. Unless Zimmerman radically changes his story (which we have no reason to suspect he will do, since he has been consistent the whole time), "SYG" is inapplicable. "SYG" is a strawman put out by the liberal media and activists to confuse the issues in this case and try to drum up a phony "national debate" on self defense laws.
What did come into play in Florida was Florida's requirement that there be probable cause before an arrest is made in a self defense case. But police still have all the normal investigative powers in self defense cases in Florida, and the end result is the same in theory. The law is designed to avoid the absurd result of punishing the victim twice by forcing them to sit in jail while police investigate. Also, under FL law, self defense is not an affirmative defense, which means that people who claim self defense are immune from prosecution unless the state can show probable cause it was not self defense and get an indictment. Note that this aspect of FL law applies in all self defense cases, not just "SYG" cases.
Quote:
According to the paper, the night of the shooting the State Attorney’s Office was consulted but a prosecutor was never sent to the scene of the shooting. At the time, Police Chief Bill Lee cited the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law and stated publicly there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman based on the statute. This sparked outrage and cries for justice across the nation.
He is not a lawyer. I never said cops don't get confused over this stuff.
The fact he talked about "probable cause" means he was talking about the other aspect of FL law that I just mentioned - the immunity from arrest in self defense cases unless there is probable cause. That has nothing to do with "SYG" itself.
I have a question: The shooting happened on February 26th, which was a Sunday. That means Trayvon had school the next day (and I looked on Sanford schools' website, it was a regular school day). So why would his father not think anything of him being out all night on a school night? He had no curfew and was allowed to be out all night? I see the same crap in my neighborhood, and some of the kids are 11/12 years old, out at 11/12 at night on a school night. Makes no sense. If I was 17 and out all night my Dad would have beat the holy s*#t out of me. If I wasn't home by curfew, they would have been looking for me. Also, I can't find anything on it, but was the Dad at home when the shooting happened, or the fiance, or was the little brother there by himself? With the sound of a gunshot and all the commotion from fire trucks and police nobody from that house checked to see what was going on when Trayvon's body was 100 yards away? Something is missing here.
I have a question: The shooting happened on February 26th, which was a Sunday. That means Trayvon had school the next day (and I looked on Sanford schools' website, it was a regular school day). So why would his father not think anything of him being out all night on a school night? He had no curfew and was allowed to be out all night? I see the same crap in my neighborhood, and some of the kids are 11/12 years old, out at 11/12 at night on a school night. Makes no sense. If I was 17 and out all night my Dad would have beat the holy s*#t out of me. If I wasn't home by curfew, they would have been looking for me. Also, I can't find anything on it, but was the Dad at home when the shooting happened, or the fiance, or was the little brother there by himself? With the sound of a gunshot and all the commotion from fire trucks and police nobody from that house checked to see what was going on when Trayvon's body was 100 yards away? Something is missing here.
He was suspended from school for like the third or fourth time when he was shot.
I implied that it's ridculous to call anything from fox news "racist remarks from some azzwipes catering to the lowly uneducated masses" when responding to a post that has in the preview for a video a picture of a guy wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Zimmerman on it with the words "p*ssy ass cracker". That is a "racist remark from some azzwipes catering to the lowly uneducated masses" if I've ever heard one.
Whenever they accuse the president of being racist because he said the "Trayvon would look like him if he had a son" or constantly called him a "thug" or the various other lies that come out of their mouths. I said that they cater to the uneducated masses well, because they do. If you look at nothing but faux news and you believe everything that they say.......well you are not that bright. My opinion had nothing to do with the picture but from the source. And I will agree with you on that point it is a weak azz racist remark catering to the lowest racist denominator.
I have a question: The shooting happened on February 26th, which was a Sunday. That means Trayvon had school the next day (and I looked on Sanford schools' website, it was a regular school day). So why would his father not think anything of him being out all night on a school night? He had no curfew and was allowed to be out all night? I see the same crap in my neighborhood, and some of the kids are 11/12 years old, out at 11/12 at night on a school night. Makes no sense. If I was 17 and out all night my Dad would have beat the holy s*#t out of me. If I wasn't home by curfew, they would have been looking for me. Also, I can't find anything on it, but was the Dad at home when the shooting happened, or the fiance, or was the little brother there by himself? With the sound of a gunshot and all the commotion from fire trucks and police nobody from that house checked to see what was going on when Trayvon's body was 100 yards away? Something is missing here.
It was 7pm when the incident happened which is not that late at night.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
