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.
You shouldn't be able to argue self-defense if you are chasing someone. The two don't go together. If the other person is running away, they are no danger to you.
Agreed.
Quote:
And in public areas you shouldn't be able to shoot to death someone you think is perpetrating a crime, if it's not very clear someone's life is at risk, or God forbid, someone that you believing is thinking about committing a crime. You should wait for the police to arrive to determine that.
Ok, but this is not what happened in the Zimmerman case, and I think that is what you are saying this in reference to. Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he thought Martin was about to commit a crime, Zimmerman shot him because Martin was on top of him beating his head in to the concrete, and we have an eye wutness that can atest to that, along with injuries that fit the eye witness descriuption. Also, the evidence doesn't support the notion that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intention of shooting him either.
I just don't understand why Zimmerman wasn't arrested right away. He murdered someone yet he was let go. That is the problem I have. He finally went on trial and was found not guilty and that is how our justice system works. But he should have been arrested that night.
Zimmerman was not arrested then because all physical evidence and witness statements corroborated Zimmerman's account and no evidence or statements existed that refuted Zimmerman's account of the altercation and its end.
Since there was no evidence controverting Zimmerman's account, the Sanford Police were bound by Florida Statute 776.032(2) and forbidden to arrest Zimmerman because they had no probable cause that the force he used was unlawful:
"A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
I think Zimmerman will still screw up, like OJ did. With his history of assault, domestic violence, and killing, he'll probably assault someone else, and hopefully there will be lots of witnesses to clearly see it, and he won't get away with it again.
And this is what it comes down to. Your argument points are a product of your prejudices and biases and have nothing to do with the law itself (or any understanding of the actual action of the law).
All you (and others here) have is a white-hot animosity for Zimmerman and a closed mind about the facts of this case.
You shouldn't be able to argue self-defense if you are chasing someone. The two don't go together. If the other person is running away, they are no danger to you.
And in public areas you shouldn't be able to shoot to death someone you think is perpetrating a crime, if it's not very clear someone's life is at risk, or God forbid, someone that you believing is thinking about committing a crime. You should wait for the police to arrive to determine that.
I agree, the problem is Zimmerman never chased Trayvon. He never stalked him like many of you claim he did.
He shot Trayvon because Trayvon was committing a crime, it's called assault.
First of all, it should be noted that SYG had no impact on the Zimmerman verdict. The law just says that there is no duty to flee, but Zimmerman could not have fled anyway, since Martin was on top of him bashing Z's head, just prior to the shot. SYG does not enter in, and Z's lawyers did not offer a SYG defense.
I read the summary version linked by OP but not the full study. But it seems bizarre on its face to me. Remember the famous 'More Guns Less Crime' studies by Lott and Mustard? These showed that after a few years of CCW laws in various states that crime went down. SYG is just kind of an ancillary provision to CCW, so why would it cause homicide to go up? Even more strange that the study claims that it went up for whites, but not for blacks.
The flaw in this in #4.
If Tm would have hit Gz and that was the end of it then the shooting would not have been justified.
It was the ongoing assault that made the shooting justified....At some point it became aggravated battery. At that point GZ was legal to draw his firearm and shoot.
The "ongoing assault" was possibly mythical, although I can agree that the state did not disprove there was one, making it a reasonable doubt issue.
Still, at a minimum, GZ should've been held accountable for the actions he took leading up to the encounter: stalking or even disturbing the peace or something of the sort.
Himself, all of the evidence in the case, the witnesses, the calls to 911 and the non emergency calls, etc etc etc etc etc.
A complete lie, of course...if GZ had not been pursuing TM the two would never have met. TM did not particularly want to encounter the "creepy-ass cracker."
Well, I won't argue ethics. . .seems to me that ethics when it comes to human life has gone out of a lot of people when it comes to guns. I would think it would remain your duty as a human being to avoid the escalation of violence.
and though I'm not sure I disagree with the Zimmerman verdict, I do agree that the law that made the zimmerman verdict happen. . .is a problem.
So on threads people like to say "whats wrong with stand your ground"
Spoiler
Well - the evidence suggest that deaths of white males is the primary issue with Stand your Ground. A net increase in deaths. I.e. People killed prior to stand your ground - People killed after per month. They amount to approx 4 additional deaths per month.
Yet, no real impact on crime. Just look at the data. . .When Florida implemented stand your ground the overall decline in crime was still going. . and it kept going. Not like you accelerated that crime decline.
So whats wrong. To me its simple: It costs Human Life - it doesn't come with a benefit
Kind of Ironic - African Americans are protesting the law, yet its whites who are dying by it (not blacks)
What has 'stand your ground' got to do with Zimmerman/Martin? Zim was on his back, Martin bashing his head. Not much retreat opportunity there.
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.
Why is "Stand your Ground" wrong
